BOOKS- The NEW YORK GOLD ROOM: Wall Street’s Big Gamble on the Civil War

Scene on the floor of the New York Gold Exchange or “Gold Room,” 1869.

In all American history since 1789, with its many financial booms and busts, only once has the United States Congress ever stepped in and closed down a major financial market in the middle of active trading, trying to stop speculation and cool prices. This took place in 1864 at one of the bloodiest points in the Civil War, prompted by a case of war profiteering in the extreme. It failed miserably. It’s target? The New York Gold Exchange, or Gold Room.

A British-born writer named Kinahan Cornwallis (1839-1917) witnessed this event while working in New York City as a reporter for the New York Herald.  We at Viral History Press LLC are proud now to bring you Kinahan’s account, first published in pamphlet form by A.S. Barnes & Company in 1879, as the first of a new series of eBooks called History Shorts / Original Voices, brief but compelling eye witness accounts of key events in American history.The NEW YORK GOLD ROOM: Wall Street’s Big Gamble on the Civil War, in Corwallis account of war profiteering run amok. 

Gold speculation never existed in the United States before January 1862. Weeks earlier, in December 1861, President Abraham Lincoln had decided to suspend the national gold standard, the legal right to convert paper money into gold coin or “specie,” as a step to help finance since the Civil War.  At the same time, Lincoln also asked Congress to float some $450 million in paper dollars and began borrowing heavily. His Treasury Department would sell over $2 billion in bonds by the end of the War, easily worth half-a-trillion in modern dollars.

These steps created a new dual-currency system in America, with two forms of money circulating side by side: paper “greenbacks” as legal tender for domestic debts and claims, and gold coin as the currency of the world, needed for foreign trade, tariffs, and custom duties.

A brisk gold trade arose along Wall Street in early 1862. Each Confederate military victory sent gold prices soaring and greenbacks plummeting. Speculators, stock traders, rebel and Union sympathizers, and Washington officials with access to battlefield news dominated the market, far outnumbering the bankers, exporters, importers, and other commercial gold users. Daily price fluctuations affected the national war effort, since rising gold prices directly eroded the value of the federal Treasury.


Bankers like Philadelphia’s Jay Cooke called the New York gold traders “General Lee’s left flank.” The New York Stock Exchange agreed; it considered gold trading disloyal and refused to allow it under its roof. This forced gold speculators to form a separate Gold Exchange on nearby William Street.


Gold prices spiked in June 1864 to $200 in paper — a full fifty percent devaluation of the nation’s paper currency — as General Ulysses Grant’s army sat stalled outside Petersburg, Virginia. Responding to public anger at the spectacle of Wall Street moneymen profiting off the bleak military stalemate, Congress passed the Gold Act, a statute designed to close the Gold Exchange immediately. To its surprise, however, closing the Exchange only made matters worse, encouraging hoarders and fueling a panic. The gold price skyrocketed by an additional $100, reaching almost $300 paper-to-gold, before frantic appeals from New York merchants convinced Congress to repeal the Gold Act and reopen the Exchange ten days later.


Only General William T. Sherman’s capture of Atlanta in August 1864 finally broke the bull market and cooled the fire. When Robert E. Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Courthouse on April 9, 1865, the gold price sagged to $144, less than half its wartime high. It raises an age-old question: Which was worse: Over-speculation by the Wall Street gold traders, or Congress’ uninformed over-reaction that did far more harm than good?

For ease of reading, we have made minor edits and format changes, particularly shorter paragraphs and sub-headings, and added a few annotations to clarify historical context. Otherwise, we’ve left Kinahan Cornwallis’s text alone. We hope you enjoy this original voice from the 1870s.

Here, as an excerpt, is where Cornwallis describes what happened ton Wall Street the day after Congress stepped in and closed the Gold Room —


From The NEW YORK GOLD ROOM: Wall Street’s Big Gamble on the Civil War

But the effect of large issues of irredeemable paper was not thus easily to be legislated away by a mere enactment closing the regular market for the precious metal. …


The abolition of the Gold Room, involved in this unwise, not to say absurd law, was its worst feature, for it closed the door to competition among bona fide holders of coin, as well as among speculative sellers. The real holders of gold were thus isolated, and each individual of their number was free to ask whatever price he pleased for the metal. Every one naturally wanted the highest price obtainable, and there began a rise faster than ever in the Gold Room. Those who had to pay customs’ entries and foreign indebtedness became alarmed, and rushed to the offices of the bullion dealers in Wall street, to make their gold purchases at the going price, whatever that might be, fearing that it would soon be still higher. Those who had sold “short” were still more apprehensive of the future course of the premium, and in trying to “cover” their contracts accelerated the upward movement.


No quotations for gold were made on the Stock Exchange, or on the street, and purchasers had to run from office to office, inquiring the price at which holders were willing to sell. Leading merchants and bankers, who had urged upon Congress this prohibitory legislation, now wrote and telegraphed to Washington, imploring the repeal of the Gold bill.


The whole country was alarmed by the rocket-like ascent of the premium following its passage, and Congress, amazed and rebuked by the advance — gold having sold at 198 on the 20th of June, and at 250 before the end of the month¬ — repealed the bill on the 2d of July, and the bears began to breathe a little more freely. Sunday, and “the Fourth” followed, and on the morning of the 5th, the Gold Room was re-opened; but the tug of war had yet to come. [By late June 1864, General Grant’s advance had been stopped, and his Army settled into a siege around Petersburg, Virginia, just twenty-one miles south of Richmond, that would last until March 1865.]

Still another corner


The bulls were prepared to twist the “shorts,” and as the outstanding contracts for future delivery were large, they found it easy to control the floating supply of “cash” gold — that is the coin available for immediate delivery — and so force the bears to buy to make their deliveries, unless they preferred the alternative of borrowing at exorbitant rates each day, to keep their contracts good. The market was virtually cornered. The highest price on the 5th of July was 249. On the 6th, it had risen to 261 ½, on the 7th to 273, on the 8th to 276 ½. On the 9th it remained steady, and on Monday the 11th leaped up to 285.


The bears quivered with rage and excite¬ment, or abandoned the contest in despair. Gilpin’s News Room, at the corner of William street and Exchange Place — to which the gold market had been removed before this from the Coal Hole — was turned into a scene of tumult, vociferation, agony, and disorder, that might be likened, for want of a better illustration, to Pandemonium. Men who were losing thousands every hour, or every minute, were there, shouting themselves hoarse, their hands uplifted and their eyes roll¬ing in frenzy, while their countenances indicated that they we’re undergoing mental tortures colloquially described as equal to those of the damned. Others were there, emboldened by and wildly elated with their own success, and tempting fortune by testing their luck to the utmost, apparently believing with the poet, that-


‘He either fears his fate too much, Or his deserts are small,
Who dares not put it to the touch, To gain, or lose, it all.’


A surging, writhing mass of humanity shook the Gold Room, and the sound of many voices filled the air, while men with anxious and fevered faces rushed in and out of the clamorous confusion with a semi-frantic celerity such as might have been expected of them if their lives or fortunes had been dependent on the result of a moment. The din would rise and fall like the roar of a tempest, but every few minutes new men would rush in, and yell far above the storm, and then rush out again after executing their orders; and day after day the exciting drama of gold was repeated. Meanwhile the whole country looked on with apprehension.


The “Corner” — for such it may be termed — culminated on the 11th of July, and after the Gold Room had closed on that day, private transactions took place at still higher figures than any chronicled during the regular hours of busi¬ness, one of these, it was rumored, being at a price above 300. But although the market had reached “top,” it showed stubbornness in yielding. On the 19th of July, sales were made at 268 3/4, on the 6th of August at 261 3/4, and on the 2d of September at 254 1/2. By the end of that month, however, there was a decline to 191 ; yet so erratic was the course of speculation, that on the 9th of November the price touched 260 again.


On that day General [William Tecumseh] Sherman began his mem¬orable and triumphant march through Georgia to the coast, and gold never afterward reached that altitude, but on the whole steadily declined, until it sold at 125 in March 1866, in consequence of the successes of the Union armies, culminating in the overthrow of the rebellion.

If you enjoyed the excerpt, just click here to check out the full ebook on Amazon.com.  



MONEY: Boss Tweed’s Bondholder Revolt



Cartoon by Thomas Nast depicting the Tweed Ring in Harper’s Weekly, Aug. 19, 1871. Source: Library of Congress.

A hearty thanks to the Bloomberg “Echoes” financial history blog for running this item first on May 9, 2012.  Check them out for a great daily history fix.

How can excessive debt sink a government? Look no further than New York — in 1871, under the leadership of the eminently corrupt William M. Tweed.

Today, the U.S. government owes some $15.2 trillion. Its largest group of public creditors comprises foreigners and foreign governments, led by China and Japan. Overseas creditorshold $5.1 trillion in U.S. paper and continue to be big buyers at Treasury auctions. What would happen in the (still unlikely) event they stopped buying?

Take a look at “Boss” Tweed’s New York. Tweed, the legendary Grand Sachem of Tammany Hall and a renowned political fixer, was easily the most corrupt politician in American history. He and his cronies stole a remarkable amount of money during their brief reign from 1868 to 1871: Estimates range from $60 million to $100 million in 1871 dollars, worth many billions today.

Tweed himself ultimately was convicted on 204 counts of fraud and died behind bars in New York’s Ludlow Street jail as a disgraced man.

Still, while in power, Tweed ran a happy city. Everyone made money under his system. Real estate boomed and business prospered. He financed his corrupt regime on low taxes while providing good service and plenty of graft for friends. To pay the tab, he borrowed.

Debt, Debt, Debt

Under Tweed, the city treasury issued oceans of debt: Croton Aqueduct Bonds, Central Park Improvements Bonds, four classes of County Court House stock, Bonds for Repayment of Taxes, Assessment Fund Stock, Park Improvement Bonds, Street Improvement Bonds. New York’s city and county debt swelled to more than $97 million by mid-1871 from $36.3 million in January 1869, with interest payments approaching $10 million a year.

Local banks and brokers snapped up these bonds and sold them to investors in Europe, mostly British and German, who didn’t know any better and considered them safe.

But that changed in July 1871, when the New York Times (NYT)received a stolen copy of the Tweed Ring’s secret accounts and published it on its front pages — disclosing all manner of fraud and theft, including embezzlement and bill padding on construction of the Tweed Courthouse in lower Manhattan. City leaders read with disbelief.

Thomas Nast’s clever cartoons of the time depicted Tweed as a laughable crook. But one group that found no humor in the situation was the bondholders. In late July, they cut off credit. The city put $40,000 in bonds up at auction one day and failed to receive a single bid. A few days later, the Commercial and Financial Chronicle warned of a panic. In Europe, the Berlin Stock Exchange banned New York’s city and county bonds from its official trading list.

The city had a looming interest payment of $2.7 million due Nov. 1, and its agents could no longer raise money in world markets. “They distrust our securities in London,” an unnamed broker told the New-York Tribune.

If credit dried up and the city defaulted on its debt, the impact on New York’s wealthy would be devastating, wiping out their bulging bond portfolios and crippling their standing in Europe, which was still a principal source of capital for American finance.

An “insurrection of the capitalists” quickly organized itself in lower Manhattan. Some 1,000 merchants rushed to sign a petition refusing to pay any more property taxes until city officials gave a full account of their spending. Another group filed a lawsuit to block a city construction project on Broadway. Calls went out for city leaders to convene publicly on Sept. 4 — when wealthy men had returned from their summer holidays.

The Fall

After that, the fall came quickly. In early September, reformers won a court injunction demanding an accounting and blocking any more spending by Tweed’s City Hall. By October, Tweed had been indicted, and would soon begin his long journey through the city and state prison system. The flow of credit only resumed after the entire Tweed system had been dismantled.

America’s current mountain of debt wasn’t built on fraud like Tweed’s. Nor did the European bondholders in Tweed’s day worry that stopping the money flow to one city government would hurt their larger investments portfolios in the long term, as U.S. creditors today surely would. They demanded regime change – – replacement of the Tweed Ring with an honest government — and they got it.

But there are lessons for modern American politicians here. First, don’t steal. (Hopefully they know that one already.) Second, it’s not just in Europe where debt can topple governments — in a pinch, creditors always call the tune.

(Kenneth D. Ackerman is the author of four books, including“Boss Tweed: The Corrupt Pol Who Conceived the Soul of Modern New York.” The opinions expressed are his own.)

GUEST BLOG: Susan Tejada on crime fighting technology in the era of Sacco and Vanzetti



The original electric chair at Sing Sing prison in New York where, in 1905, Robert Elliott executed
a prisoner for the first time in his career.

The story of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, two left-leaning Italian immigrants convicted and executed in the 1920s for a murder in South Braintree, Massachusetts, they claim they never committed, became an international cause celebre at the time and is re-discovered in the new book by Susan Tejada, In Search of Sacco and Vanzetti: Double Lives, Troubled Times, and the Massachusetts Murder Case That Shook the World.  Here, Susan tells us more about the crime-fighting technology of the era, copied with permission from her web site:
The collision of old and new technology is striking in the story of Sacco and Vanzetti—at least when it comes to cars, coal, and capital punishment.

In 1920 not all law enforcement officials had cars, or even knew how to drive. A criminal with access to an automobile, a so-called bandit on wheels, could often escape unpursued.


A coal bin could facilitate covert ops. In 1921, when defense committee members wanted to make a secret recording of a bribery attempt in their office, they concealed a secretary with an early-model Dictaphone in a coal bin.

The scariest technological innovation appearing in this story has to be the electric chair.

It’s difficult to believe now, but in the late nineteenth century the chair was seen as a humane method of capital punishment, more humane at least than the gallows it replaced.



As a teenager in upstate New York in 1888, Robert Elliott became fascinated with the then-emerging technology of consumer electronics, so fascinated that he decided to become an electrician. He could not have foreseen that he would go on to become a part-time executioner, and would electrocute Sacco, Vanzetti, and three hundred eight-five other people over the course of his electrician’s career.

Visit Susan Tejada at her web site, www.SusanTejada.com

GUEST BLOGGER: Edwin Ivanauskas, on Modern Day Prohibition in America, as applied to Marijuana.

When someone thinks about the term “prohibition,” where first comes to mind usually is the era of illegal alcohol from 1919 to 1933 in the United States. Unbeknownst to many, similar legal bans were in effect during this same time period in other countries around the world, including Russia, Iceland, Norway and Finland.  But prohibition in America was unique, as alcohol consumption was so intertwined in the American  popular culture.  Today, we see many of the same  effects playing out over the use of marijuana.


The prohibition movement was first initiated by the American Temperance Society (ATS), which was primarily made up of women concerned at the effect of then-widespread alcoholism on their husbands. The ATS turned into an overwhelmingly effectively lobbying force behind state and the federal bans on drinking. Later, at the end of the 1800s, the movement was later taken up by The Prohibition Party, working with the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union to educate the public on the need to control drink. 

By the early 1900s, prohibition became a hot button political topic.  Those in favor of Prohibition – the “dries” – were generally religious, associated with Methodist, Baptists, or other churches.  In the 1916 presidential election, the last before prohibition went into effect, both parties and candidates, including Woodrow Wilson, purposefully ignored the topic, since both Democrats and Republicans were split throughout the country and had candidates on each side of the issue.


The prohibition controversy was undoubtedly similar to the modern day debate over the potential legalization of marijuana. Both Democrats and Republicans have internal devisions on the issue, and individual candidates sometimes divorce themselves even from their own personal experiences. Many candidates admit to smoking marijuana in their past, but will still stand against its legalization. Practically every presidential candidate in the last two decades has admittedly smoking marijuana, including Barack Obama, Bill Clinton (though famously not inhaling), and John Kerry.


Marijuana and alcohol both have their negative sides. Alcohol, when consumed in excess, can cause danger to others in the form of drunk driving, or general public intoxication. It can also lead to the use of more addictive and dangerous intoxicates.  Marijuana too, many believe, can to be a stepping stone or gateway drug to other substance abuse like cocaine and meth.   Still, alcohol and marijuana are generally considered to be less severe intoxicates, with both considered to have about the same potency.  And while alcohol has an addictive nature and can eventually lead to alcoholism, many experts believe marijuana to not be addictive.


Going back to the prohibition era, the law forbidding alcohol consumption, sale, and storage in the United States eventually was repealed after its enforcement proved nearly impossible, creating networks of organized crime and widespread violations.   Police and prohibition agents generally ignored violations by wealthier citizens while cracking down on everyone else.  A lower low class citizens could get into trouble for housing a bottle.  Presidents Wilson and Harding both kept large alcohol supplies with them in the White House during prohibition.


In our modern era, the law against marijuana have produced similar inconsistencies — though without the social class inequalities. People of all class levels use marijuana, like alcohol in the ‘20s, and they are all treated fairly similarly.  Some law enforcement is lenient in bringing cases for marijuana possession, other not. Furthermore, marijuana charges can only be brought for possession, because there is no field sobriety test as there is for alcohol. With that said, there was no such test in the prohibition days, and those charged, like marijuana now, had to have been in possession.


A substantial political rationale for legalizing marijuana is that it would allow the government to become involveed and regulate the business, as it has done  with alcvohol since prohibition ended in December 1933.  Legalizing marijuana would allow the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) to oversee its quality and use, and monitor the over-25,000 products derived from marijuana, including many hemp products.


Perhaps the most often-mentioned reason for allowing marijuana is its medicinal use. Many believe the drug helps those with a variety of health conditions, including pain control for diseases like cancer. Although there have been some abuses where permitted, eighteen state so far have decided to experiment with legalizing it for this lmited purpose.

Whether you believe in the legalization of marijuana or not, the parallels between the modern debate and America’s earlier experiment with prohibition in the 1920s are striking. Many legalization advocates point to the mistake of alcohol prohibition to support their view, and they make a very strong argument.


Edwin Ivanauskas is an unabashed history nerd who studied economics and marketing at the University of Utah.

GUEST FEATURE: Nell Minow and her exclusive interview with Senator Adlai E. Stevenson III



Senator Adlai Stevenson III in 1975 (second from right, standing) with bipartisan delegation to Chica including (back row, from right) Ambassador George H.W. Bush and Senators Stevenson  and Claiborne Pell and (front row) Senators Jacob Javits and Charles H. Percy (2nd and 4th from right).

  Illinois has had its problems with elected officials, but it is also the home of Abraham Lincoln and Barack Obama.  In between those two Illinois Presidents, great public servants from the state have included five generations of the Stevenson family.  Most recently, Adlai E. Stevenson III served as United States Senator from 1970 to 1981, following terms as Illinois State Treasurer and representative to the state legislature. His father was Illinois Governor and the Democratic candidate for the presidency in 1952 and 1956, losing both times to Dwight D. Eisenhower.  After that, he served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, memorably confronting the Soviet Union over the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Going back further, Senator Stevenson’s grandfather held state office in Illinois and his great-grandfather was a Congressman and Vice President of the United States under Grover Cleveland. His great-great-grandfather, Jesse Fell, was Secretary of the Illinois Republican Party. He proposed the historic Lincoln/Douglas debates and persuaded Lincoln to run for President. He did not run for office himself but set his family an example of citizen statesmanship that still resonates today.

Senator Stevenson is currently active through the Adlai Stevenson Center on Democracy, with an upcoming event on the Presidential Debates featuring my father, Newton Minow, whose work with Governor Stevenson during his Presidential campaigns in the 1950s formed the basis of the current system of Presidential debates.

The Stevenson family has a tradition of collecting thoughts and quotations about politics, history, and related topics, and Senator Stevenson has now edited what the family calls The Black Book with 150 years worth of insights and advice.  It is an enthralling compilation, rewarding a quick look at a random page or careful study of chapters on topics from “Congress and the Legislative Process” to “Religion and Politics,” “Lincoln, War, Peace,” and even poetry — a treat for fans of history, politics, and just good reading.



I was delighted to have a chance to interview Senator Stevenson, for whom I worked as an intern in the summer of 1973, when I was in college and the Watergate hearings were underway.   Here is some of what he told me:

The Senate

 NM: What has been the biggest change for the worse since you were in the Senate? What has been the biggest change for the better?

AES: In the Senate I entered, there was no partisanship. We worked across the aisle – remember Nixon supported Environmental Protection, product safety, OSHA, even supported wage and price controls. The center was broad. Reason still reigned – and some wise men (yes, mostly men). Nowadays anybody can be elected without sufficient money or notoriety. The process is paralyzed. Civility broke down as ideology and money invaded. Now a handful can stop consideration of measures and paralyze Congress. I haven’t observed any favorable changes.

 NM: Do you think there is any way to limit the impact of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision on corporate money in politics?

Campaigns and Politics

 



AES: Yes. The Court may reconsider the issue. Campaigns could be shortened – and ballots to reduce costs. The Federal Communications Act might again be enforced so licensees of public air waves are held to some public, convenience, and necessity standards as in the past. Partial public financing may be the most doable solution. I am skeptical about a Constitutional amendment and proposals to take limits off contributions to parties and candidates to counter super PACs. We could also fund public TV and radio adequately as other democracies do. We just had an Adlai Stevenson Center program on the subject but I did not hear any easy answers.




NM: There are a lot of wonderful quotes in the book. Did any of the selections collected by your father surprise you? Do you have a favorite?


AES: Remember, the quotations came from everywhere and were added over four generations, probably most by me. As I say, every page uncovers a surprise that I added for illustrative, not so much argumentative, purposes. (The open letter to Santorum was ahead of its time like others). I have many favorites, for example:

  • ” With all the temptations and degradations that beset it, politics is the noblest career; any man can choose. Andrew Oliver, ca 1810.
  • “Ever’ once in a while some feller with no bad habits gits caught,” Will Rogers.
  • And my cardinal rule: A politician owes the public: “his conscience and his best opinion…not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” Edmund Burke, 1774




NM: Your father was selected as the Democratic Presidential candidate in a brokered convention. Are there advantages to that system over the primaries?

AES: “Brokered” is pejorative. Given the present spectacle, old-fashioned conventions of party leaders with some knowledge of the candidates, the demands of public office and the issues are preferable. Those conventions debated issues like civil rights in 1948 and war in 1968. They adopted platforms after extensive hearings and debates – Democrats driving much of the South out of the party in 1948 with a civil rights plank. (I was a sergeant at arms – that was security!) Now conventions are media events. The New York Times reports that the National Committees have each already raised over $100 million each for their respective media events. All great presidents during the span of The Black Book (and some not so great) were chosen by old-fashioned conventions. Clinton was the first Democrat of the new era of money, tactics and the deal. The jury is still out on Obama, but he was an accident in his Illinois elections – all his opponents, Democratic and Republican, self-destructed.




NM: How have social media and the 24-hour news cycle changed politics?


AES: They are undermining established sources of political authority here and elsewhere. Campaign staffs spend their time answering charges from anywhere in the blogosphere and responding in kind. For these anonymous assassins there is no accountability. I can see plusses but on balance it looks negative. The Arab spring is fascinating, but we may be disappointed by the results. Real issues were never more complex so we debate contraception and gay marriage, which are better suited for 24-hour news. The world is appalled by the political spectacle.



Senator Stevenson on election night, 1974.

NM: The quotes by your father on page 55 seem particularly apt in describing the current political climate.

  • “I am seasoned enough to have learned that the hardest thing about any campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning.”
  • “A campaign addressed not to men’s minds and to their best instincts, but to their passions, emotions, and prejudices is unworthy at best.” Is there a way to win office today by appealing to “minds and best instincts?”


AES: Judging from responses to my TV and radio interviews, book signings and speeches, most people would respond to a candidate who leveled with them and did so with reason and truth. I sense near desperation among voters. But how to appeal to the narrow base needed to win the nomination in this “democratic” process? Once nominated a candidate might get enough time, even if bought, for face-to-face talks with the American people as my father did.


Humor
NM: The Black Book has a section on the importance of humor. What does humor tell us about politicians and what does a politician’s humor tell us about him or her?

A family snapshot of father and son playing tennis.

AES: Humor is revealing. It can come naturally and spontaneously to the politician of light heart and clean conscience. He does not have to check to make sure it is consistent with his “message” or get advice from consultants. It can be effective as a means of telling the story, denigrating the opponent without being mean-spirited and conveying the person. It makes the audience feel good. Lincoln was a great humorist. The absence of humor today reveals a different condition and candidate.




NM: Is there a politician today who reminds you of Adlai I or Adlai II?


AES: The short answer is no. Adlai II [who ran for President in the 1950s] was a student of the world from on-the-ground starting as a college student. Now that is more important than ever — to see this world from within it. I know there are many good and decent public servants out there. But no Adlai II. Let’s face it, even in my time sensation attracted media attention from the US press – not the complex issues. Not even terrorism when I was conducting its first in depth study, predicting it and introducing measurers to control and prevent it. Make no mistakes, or worse yet, get it right and you don’t get much if any attention from mainstream media.

My generation produced some strong candidates like Ed Muskie and Phil Hart. I don’t see them today. Lincoln, the Whig and supporter of a strong central government, has been traded in for Reagan. The Dick Lugars are threatened, or like Olympia Snow resign. I hope I am wrong. I do see an occasional well-qualified Congressional candidate.




NM: What was the best advice you got from your family about politics?


AES: None — except by example. We rarely discussed politics. My father advised establishing a career at the law to fall back on in times of need — as he did. It was advice I rejected when Richard J. Daly gave me a chance to run for the legislature and lead 236 at-large candidates! I am so glad I rejected Dad’s advice. He lived just long enough to see the name carried on. We even out-polled an Eisenhower in that 1964 election! Besides, I wanted to start at the bottom.



NM: You served during one of the most significant political crises in American history, the Watergate
hearings and impeachment. What did you learn from that experience?


AES: I did not learn anything from Watergate. I had warned the Democratic caucus about Nixon, somewhat presumptuously. The system worked brilliantly. Sam Ervin was heroic in the Senate. The House, led by Pete Rodino, rose to the occasion. Nelson Rockefeller became Vice President. I had a hand in it. I reached an agreement with Elliott Richardson which was publicized during his confirmation hearing for Attorney General. He was pleased to agree publicly to this agreement as a condition of his confirmation . It set out the powers required for the independence of a special prosecutor.. To comply, he resigned when ordered by Nixon to control the special prosecutor The Saturday night massacre followed. The system worked. Today, Newt Gingrich, an adulterer, is chastised by the full House, forced for the only time in history to resign the Speakership, fined $300,000, resigns to become a high-paid unregistered lobbyist for Fannie Mae, and then runs for President and after he had tried to impeach Clinton!. When I was chairman of the Senate Ethics committee, the mere pendency of an investigation terminated one’s career. I saw it happen.


 



NM: The quote from Adlai II on page 165 is also very timely: “I believe in what is called for want of a better word ‘free enterprise.’ But free enterprise…must be a source of well being for the many, or it won’t be free very long.” What is the cause of the precipitous increase in income disparity and is American enterprise still a source of well being for the many?


AES: I think my chapter on Finance says it all. I was surprised to hear President Obama refer to Social Darwinian economics — as if he had been reading the Black Book! It is back, but this time there is little reaction and the country is in a self-induced economic decline. Benefits are cut as unemployment rises. Resources are invested in unwinnable wars to undermine other people also, as in Iraq. China rises and makes a conscious effort to reduce the inequalities, a big challenge. The Epilogue of the book puts it in historical context. For Lincoln, Union required hope and opportunity for all. Government was of, for and by ALL the people.

Nell Minow is co-author of three books about corporate governance and the author of one book about movies.  She reviews the week’s movies and DVD’s and writes about media and pop culture on her Blog.  Visit her at www.moviemom.com.

Happy Holidays

While I’m away the next few days, have a very happy Passover, Easter,  Spring Break, NHL playoffs, family visit, day off, or wherever else life leads.    Meanwhile, a few takes on Passover —

BOOKS: In Search of Sacco and Vanzetti

I recently had the chance to write a cover blurb for the new book  In Search of SACCO & VANZETTI: Double Lives, Troubled Times, & and Massachusetts Murder Case that Shook the World, by Susan Tejada.    Here’s what I came up with–

Susan Tejada gives us Sacco and Vanzetti as real human beings ripe with complexity, which makes their sad case all the more compelling.  In the process, she opens a window on a younger America, and presents this cause celebre case as what it is, a classic drama of an unsolved crime cutting so close to society’s rawest nerves that it can spill spark heated arguments a century later.  This is an important story told well.” 

Here’s the longer, starred review from Booklist–

“This is a terrific reexamination of the Sacco and Vanzetti case by journalist Tejada, whose lively writing and reporter’s eye offer a fresh, invigorating perspective on otherwise familiar characters and historical episodes. She brings the suspense and engagement of a good thriller to the events surrounding the April 1920 murders of a Massachusetts paymaster and security guard. . . . Her examination of the case and her “alternative theory” of their guilt or innocence are both compelling. . . . In the process, she has also written a very entertaining and perceptive history of early twentieth-century radicalism, anarchism, the Wobblies, and the American Labor Movement.” –Booklist (starred review)

Check it out.  Hope you enjoy it.  –KA

GUEST BLOGGER: Debbie Weinkamer on Lucretia Garfield, “The Vanishing First Lady” – or Am I?

Former First Lady Lucretia Garfield (seated center) with thirteen of her sixteen grandchildren in Mentor, Ohio, summer 1906.
Left to right –Standing (back row): Newell Garfield, Lucretia Garfield, James Garfield, Rudolph Hills Garfield (in sailor suit w/teddy bear), John Garfield, Rudolph Stanley-Brown.  Seated (front row): Margaret Stanley-Brown, Stanton Garfield, Edward Garfield, Lucretia Rudolph Garfield (Mrs. James A. Garfield), Mary Louise Garfield, Ruth Stanley-Brown, Mason Garfield, and James A. Garfield.

First Lady Lucretia Garfield lived for 36 years after her husband, President James A. Garfield, was assassinated in 1881 by Charles Guiteau. During that time, she became a beloved figure in America, though she shunned publicity. She created the first Presidential Memorial Library and became the matriarch of a large, close-knit and affectionate family. Debbie Weinkamer, who portrays Lucretia, is a Garfield researcher and first-person living historian. Here she presents how Lucretia would speak for herself in answering the critics if she had the chance. Not always self-assured, except in the company of friends and family, nevertheless, Lucretia had always met adversity head on, facing her responsibilities.



Lucretia as First Lady, 1881.



Before Women’s History Month marches away, I would like to contribute to Mr. Ackerman’s Viral History blog in order to clear up some misconceptions about me. Many of you have not heard much about me since my husband’s assassination and death in 1881. Even the newspapers have called me the “Vanishing First Lady” and “Discreet Crete.” I must admit: I have ducked all publicity, for I feel that in no way am I personally famous. The name I bear is honored and honorable, but I am just an ordinary woman devoted to her husband and children.

I did enjoy my husband’s rise to prominence in politics, contrary to many historians’ opinions of me. At the beginning of his political career, I wrote to him that, “I feel so much anxiety for you that your public career be never marked by the blight of a misdirected step. I want you to be great and good.” I was one of his most-trusted confidants and advisors. I didn’t expect him to be nominated for President in the political climate of 1876-1880, but thought that his time would eventually come. However, after he received the “dark horse” nomination at the 1880 Republican Convention in Chicago, I wanted him to win the election – even though I knew that it would bring political difficulties to my husband and a terrible responsibility to our entire family.




Lucretia with husband and future president James A. Garfield, circa 1853.

 My quiet, shy nature made me very reluctant to take over the social duties of First Lady, even though I had been a Congressman’s wife for 17 years and had lived in Washington with my husband and family during sessions of Congress since 1869. However, I was very fortunate to receive the good advice and assistance of my friend Harriet Blaine, wife of my husband’s Secretary of State and “an experienced Washington grande dame.” I came to rely on her fine judgment regarding many etiquette matters, including how to establish my calling hours at the Executive Mansion, and effective ways to handle newspaper correspondents and petty criticisms.


(Here, I must pause to reveal some interesting correspondence regarding the Blaines…In April 1875, I received a letter from my husband concerning a rumor that when James Blaine was getting married to Harriet, the couple’s “warm blood led them to anticipate the nuptial ceremony,” and their first child was born about six months after their marriage. My husband asked, would this fact “have weight with the people in the Presidential Campaign?” [Mr. Blaine was being considered by some for the presidency.]




Debbie as Lucretia Garfield, looking at a
picture of her late husband.

 I replied, “It was a queer piece of gossip you gave me of Mr. Blaine. I scarcely believe it. But if it is true, it ought not to affect the voters very much unless it would have been considered more honorable by the majority to have abandoned the woman—seduced. My opinion of Mr. Blaine would be rather heightened than otherwise by the truth of such a story: for it would show him not entirely selfish and heartless.”)


During his brief presidency, my husband paid me the best compliments a political wife can receive: that I was discreet and wise, that my “role as his partner in the presidential enterprise was essential to him,” and that I “rose up to every occasion.”


I have led a quiet, yet social, life since that terrible tragedy in 1881. I created a “country estate” from my farm property in Mentor, Ohio and embarked on several building projects. A “Memorial Library” addition was built onto the back of the farmhouse, complete with a fire-proof vault to hold my husband’s papers from his public career (and more than 1,200 letters shared between us). I’ve been told that it may inspire others to create presidential libraries one day!


My children have completed college, married, and now have children of their own. I am so pleased to say that they have grown up to be distinguished citizens in their own right. We all gather at the Mentor farm every summer, and I can be found wintering in South Pasadena, California. I love to travel to New York City for the opera season and to visit my 16 grandchildren at least once a year.


I try to keep well-informed of science, cultural, and political events, both at home and abroad. I have co-founded a ladies’ literary group (based on one that my husband and I attended in Washington) called the Miscellany Club, where monthly meetings are held in members’ homes and we take turns speaking on subjects related to a year-long topic, like “American History.” I often correspond with my oldest sons about political matters, which can get quite interesting since one is aligned with Woodrow Wilson and the other with Theodore Roosevelt!


My five children have been a continual joy and inspiration to me. And with the memory of my dear Husband and our little ones who didn’t stay with us very long…I have had a remarkable life. For does not life grow richer as the years go by? Even our losses lead us into wider fields and nobler thoughts.


Very respectfully,


Lucretia R. Garfield

Post Script: Lucretia Garfield, wife of 20th U.S. President James A. Garfield, died at her winter home in South Pasadena, CA on March 13, 1918, just a month shy of her 86th birthday. She never remarried and had a full life after her husband’s untimely death. I have the privilege of portraying her and “bringing Lucretia to life” for various groups in Northeast Ohio – and beyond.

GUEST BLOGGER: Diana Parsell on Eliza Scidmore, the woman behind the planting of Washington’s cherry trees in 1912.


Japanese girls in a tea ceremony, a hand-colored photo by Eliza Scidmore from early 1900s, 
included in an exhibit of her work on display at the National Geographic Society in Washington through Labor Day.

This year’s Cherry Blossom Festival is underway in Washington, D.C., and it’s a special one because March 27 marks 100 years since the first trees from Japan were planted in Potomac Park. The anniversary has brought attention to a long-overlooked woman who played a key role in that historic event: Eliza Ruhamah Scidmore.


It was Eliza’s suggestion to First Lady Helen Taft in 1909 that set the events in motion. Several times over many years Eliza had approached federal park officials to propose a park of cherry trees along the Potomac, much like those she saw during her travels in Japan. She envisioned people in Washington coming together in the springtime in a spirit of goodwill, as the Japanese did at their hanami, or blossom-viewing parties. Mrs. Taft took up the idea because she too had seen cherry trees flowering in Japan and understood what a lovely sight they were.


If Google had existed a century ago, a search for the name “Eliza Scidmore” would have brought hundreds of hits. A prolific journalist, the author of eight books, a popular lecturer and a world traveler, she was so well known that newspapers regularly noted the comings and goings of “Miss Scidmore.”


I stumbled upon her several years ago through a reprint of her 1899 travelogue on Java. Surprised to learn the author (“E.R. Scidmore”) was a woman, I headed to the Library of Congress to find out more. Her remarkable list of achievements astonished me.

Flowering cherries along the Sumida River in Tokyo, known as Mukojima, circa 1897. 
Eliza Scidmore wanted to create a “Mukojima on the Potomac.”



She broke the “glass ceiling” long before the term was invented, when elected the first female board member of the National Geographic Society. For nearly two decades she contributed to National Geographic as editor, writer and photographer. The Society is now displaying two dozen of her hand-colored photos as part of an exhibit running to September.


Eliza Scidmore was one of the growing number of women in the late 19th century who followed their own course, fashioning an independent life outside the normal Victorian template of marriage and motherhood.




Eliza Scidmore, probably in her late 30s or early 40s.

 

She was born in 1856 in Clinton, Iowa, but spent part of her early childhood in Madison, Wisc., among her mother’s progressive-minded family. Life changed dramatically when her parents split after the outbreak of the Civil War. Her father went West to join a cavalry unit; her mother took young “Lillie,” as she was called, and her older brother George to live in Washington, D.C.

Elizabeth Catherine Scidmore ran a boarding house and sent her children to private schools. Eliza attended Oberlin College for two years. George became a lawyer and U.S. consular official. Eliza and Mrs. Scidmore, a socially ambitious woman, became regulars at official teas and receptions around town.

Eliza’s knowledge of Washington society opened doors to journalism. She started as a society reporter and became a correspondent for many newspapers and magazines. Much of her writing shows a fluidity of style, strong powers of description and very thorough research, characteristics that earned her wide respect for her work.


In the mid-1880s, while still in her 20s, she went to frontier Alaska on a mail steamer. (See video about the trip, below.) A book about that experience launched her 40-year career as a travel writer. She developed in particular a love of Japan, where her brother served most of his diplomatic career. Eliza, her brother and her mother are all interred at a cemetery in Yokohama.

She remains an intriguing figure to me in part because she achieved all she did largely through the force of her own talent and determination, without great wealth ― or a husband or father ― to back her up. She straddled different worlds with ease and self-assurance: moving in the worlds of eminent people such as John Muir, the Tafts and Alexander Graham Bell, but also living out of hotel rooms and modest apartments, packing and unpacking steamer trunks for her constant life on the road.


A woman of strong convictions, she spoke out passionately against anti-Japanese sentiment in Congress and on the West Coast. Her fierce loyalty to Japan led the Japanese government to award her several honors. Late in life she became a champion of the International Red Cross and the League of Nations. In 1919, a year before women got the vote, the precursor of George Washington University awarded Eliza Scidmore an honorary doctorate.


She was, I believe, a woman guided heavily by inner-directed values, someone who found an affinity with Japanese culture for its emphasis on simple living, artistic achievement and spiritual connection with nature. Though not an artist herself in the traditional sense, I think she achieved the ultimate creative act: self-invention.

Diana Parsell, an independent writer in Washington, D.C., is working on a biography of Eliza Scidmore. Visit her website on the project at http://www.agreatblooming.com/