Lincoln, Kennedy and the Field of History

This week, the nation commemorated the anniversary of two important and monumental events in American History - the 150th Anniversary of the Gettysburg Address and the 50th Anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's assassination in Dallas.  These two events - and the national discussion this week - illustrate how history impacts each of us and is relevant to us today.  I am writing this post from the National Council of the Social Studies Annual Conference in St. Louis. These two commemorations have been the subject of several sessions this week and certainly a hot topic among historians and history educators.

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address redefined the meaning of the Civil War.  Lincoln gave this speech months after the epic battle and even though it had been months, there were still bodies left to be collected on the battlefield.  A celebrated speaker of the day spoke for two hours, Lincoln followed him with a speech of only two and a half minutes.  His brief yet eloquent remarks defined the Civil War as a "test" to see whether this nation, built as a constitutional republic of "the people," would survive.  As Joy Hakim, author of Freedom: A History of US, remarked in her presentation yesterday, Lincoln's short speech illustrated how the presidency had transformed him and how he became the great moral leader of the nation, even if he did not recognize it.  As I have mentioned in class and written here before, Lincoln's greatest strengths in guiding the nation through the trauma of this war rests in his incredible vision to see the conflict through, his ability to unite or at least manage his political rivals for the common cause of union and his astounding ability to phrase powerful messages in so few of words.  Lincoln was passionate at saving the nation and preserving the entire union, as well as achieving a peace that finally put slavery to rest yet ensured the future harmony of the republic.  Of course, Lincoln's vision evolved as the office transformed him and he transformed the office.  The Gettysburg Address illustrates this transformation and demonstrates Lincoln's deep, reflective intelligence shaped by the traumatic events of the war and the sadness in his personal life.  In this regard, Lincoln and Kennedy share some similarities towards the end of their lives.

The Kennedy Assassination a century later also demonstrates an important turning point in American history.  The decade of the sixties represents another upheaval in our nation's history where Americans were challenged by the fears of the Cold War, the pursuit of equality in the civil rights movement, a dramatic change in American culture and the trauma of the Vietnam War.  The Kennedy Assassination leaves us with many questions.  Was Oswald the lone assassin or part of a wider conspiracy?  How would the 1960s have been different if Kennedy had lived?  What is the true legacy of the Kennedy presidency?  These and other questions have been the subject of several sessions here in St. Louis and of course, in the national media this week.  In addition to the presentations here and the television coverage, several historical organizations and news sites have been posting a minute-by-minute account of the Kennedy assassination on Twitter using the hashtag #JFK50.  Even though I was born in 1980 and not alive for the event, I have been able to re-live those days through social media.

Both of these events demonstrate how history also evokes controversy.  The Gettysburg anniversary may have passed with a national discussion focused solely on Lincoln and the Civil War.  However, President Obama not attending the event in Gettysburg and then, dropping the phrase "under God" from his re-reading of the speech in a video message set off a political firestorm where the focus shifted away from the event of 150 years ago to a discussion of more recent politics.  

Yesterday, I attended a session with film director Oliver Stone (JFK, Born on the Fourth of July) and Dr. Peter Kuznick, authors of The Untold History of the United States.  When the session began with a remark on how terrible our nation had become under George W. Bush, I knew immediately where this one was headed.  At the end of the session, Oliver Stone recommended that education and the nation would be better if we could get "those damn Republicans" out of office.  Will that evoke controversy? Yes, but it brings up an important lesson.  Learning history is exhilarating.  What do we really know about the past?  Who writes history?  Why are the events of the past so relevant to us today?  Where do we stand on the controversial event and/or controversial interpretations of history?  The other lesson is to always recognize that everyone has a bias.  Tread carefully.

In yesterday's presentation, we heard Oliver Stone's perspective on the Kennedy assassination as a major conspiracy.  In fact, government involvement - maybe even Lyndon Johnson himself - was implied, or at least Stone raised the question.  Today, I listened to David Keck who has spent years researching the event who disagrees with many of the key points of Stone's speech and the JFK film.  What does this tell us?  This is what makes learning history so compelling. 

To understand history is not to learn a chain of events or a particular interpretation of history.  When we simply study stories of history in a classroom, we only learn one interpretation - the interpretation of the one choosing the stories.  My challenge as a history teacher is to teach the skills of historical inquiry, to teach students to think like historians and sometimes not like historians - to question what we know.  These anniversaries and related controversies illustrate the need for good historical inquiry, grounded on factual evidence.  Students, help me to be this teacher - ask questions, challenge what we learn.

Post note: Tonight, I will be listening to Harold Holzer and "The Making of Steven Speilberg's Lincoln."  Tomorrow, we plan to attend Mass at the Old Cathedral, visit museums and then make the journey home.  I will post pictures of St. Louis later in the week.

Lincoln and Emancipation

Last week, I finished Doris Kearns Goodwin's comprehensive book, Team of Rivals. The central theme of this book is the "political genius of Abraham Lincoln." Goodwin meticulously examines the lives of Lincoln and his cabinet from their youth to the 1860 Republican Convention and throughout the four-year struggle of the Civil War. While the focus is on Lincoln, she also closely examines the lives of his political rivals who became part of his official political family - the cabinet. Assembling a cabinet of Republican rivals and Democrats, all who believed in 1860 that Lincoln was unqualified to be chief executive, truly was a strike of genius, especially on the brink of the worst crisis ever experienced by our nation. Though at times it seemed that Lincoln was swayed or even controlled by some in the cabinet, especially Seward, Lincoln truly was the captain at the helm. He utilized the diversity of his cabinet and even their competitiveness to strengthen the Union cause and effectively manage a challenging war, despite numerous obstacles and setbacks.

Lincoln Memorial, Washington, DC
(M. Broach, 2005)

Goodwin's book became the basis for Steven Spielberg's blockbuster hit, Lincoln, now appearing in theaters. Both the film and the book capture Lincoln's uniquely dynamic and attractive personality. It truly was Lincoln's charisma, insightful leadership and appealing good nature that made him the ideal president for guiding the union through four years of bloody civil war. It is hard to imagine how the nation would have fared if a Stephen Douglas, William Henry Seward or Salmon Chase had been president. Though Lincoln certainly could be moved on particular issues, he usually had a strongly formed position on the major issues of the day and then guided the nation, a union of radicals, moderates and conservatives, towards that position. He timed major decisions well and was uniquely able to disarm critics with an anecdote or story to prove a point. Even some of Lincoln's harshest critics came to see the wisdom of his vision: an indivisible nation that fulfilled the dream of the Founding Fathers - a republic of the people dedicated to the "proposition that all men are created equal."

This is a picture of the actual
Emancipation Proclamation (photo:
M. Broach, 2005)

Scanned Version

Today marks the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. This single act catapulted Lincoln to the fame he enjoys today and served as the critical turning point of the Civil War, making the Union cause one of freedom instead of simply political reunion. From early on, Lincoln detested slavery and viewed it as a moral evil. However, as a lawyer and politician, he held the view of many that it was a constitutionally protected institution in the South. As president, in the absence of war, he could only forbid slavery in lands controlled by the federal government - the western territories. This was his platform in the Election of 1860.  After the first shots of the Civil War, Radical Republicans and abolitionists pushed incessantly for emancipation. However, Lincoln hesitated, citing the cause of union as more important and questioning whether or not he had the legal authority to make such a bold move. As the war progressed and Union commanders began confiscating slaves as enemy property, the concept of emancipation loomed heavily on Lincoln and his cabinet. Lincoln took the wise view that he could not make any move until the Union had a significant victory on the battlefield. Furthermore, Lincoln still believed that any blanket emancipation order might drive the border states to the Confederacy or be held as legally invalid once the war concluded. Therefore, when the Emancipation Proclamation was announced in September 1862 after the victory at Antietam, it only applied to areas still in rebellion against the United States as of January 1, 1863. Lincoln was able to justify his legal qualms by using his extraordinary powers as commander-in-chief to issue this proclamation as a military measure in suppressing the rebellion. While some abolitionists criticized this move as a weak response to demands for ending slavery, Lincoln wisely knew that this action would help put slavery on the path of extinction. This proclamation also opened the door to the enlistment of colored troops, a critical dynamic in filling Union troop needs and as a powerful symbol to the South. Furthermore, by changing the nature of war from one of suppressing rebellion to one of ending slavery, the Emancipation Proclamation effectively closed the door to potential diplomatic recognition for the Confederacy by Great Britain or France.

The Thirteenth Amendment
(National Archives)

While the Emancipation Proclamation was Lincoln's tool for suppressing rebellion and winning the war, it was the first critical step in permanently ending slavery in the United States, especially with the promise that slaves would be "thenceforward and forever free."  As the Union finally began to turn the tide against the Confederacy and victory seemed near, Lincoln worked hard - despite warnings from his cabinet members - on a final solution to the slavery question, the Thirteenth Amendment. While some believed that Lincoln should wait for the end of the war to work on such an amendment, he instinctively knew that the promise of freedom for those African-Americans already freed by the Emancipation Proclamation must be secured before the end of the war less they be returned to bondage. The only way to ensure that he achieved the vision of finally ending slavery was to have the constitutional protection of freedom passed before the political debates of Reconstruction could take away the hopes of millions of slaves and former slaves.

The ending of slavery made the Civil War a second revolution, finally achieving the ideals espoused by the Founding Fathers.

As always, I conclude with additional resources:

• Discovering the Civil War (online exhibit of the National Archives)
• The Making and Meaning of Emancipation (free eBook from the National Archives)
• The 150th Anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation (National Archives)
• Twitter Recommendations: #EmancipationProclamation #EP150 @amhistorymuseum @USNatArchives

Election 2012

Source: US News & World Report

Next week, most American voters will make a choice between the incumbent president, Barack Obama, and the challenger, former Governor Mitt Romney. This election season has been as intense as any and offers Americans a distinct choice between two very different economic ideologies and two very different visions for the United States in the world.

This may indeed be one of the more consequential elections in history, especially if the results of November 6th are as close as the polls today suggest. If that happens, the country may need to be re-educated on the Electoral College as occurred in the contentious Election of 2000.  In fact, given the number of "states in play" this election, there is a very small possibility of a tie in the Electoral College.  Should that rare event happen, the House of Representatives would choose the President and the Senate would choose the Vice President (Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution).  That would certainly be an interesting event.  Another possibility given recent polling is that one candidate could win the popular vote, while another wins the presidency through the Electoral College.  We will have to wait and see what happens next week.

For more information on how the two candidates are polling compared to the Electoral College, see the Real Clear Politics Electoral Map.

For this post, I thought I would take a look back at some of the most significant elections in U.S. History:

Election of 1796 - This election marked the beginning of the two-party political system that we are accustomed to today.  However, because of how the original Electoral College system worked, the election resulted in a president of one party and a vice president of another party.  Federalist President John Adams and Democratic-Republican Vice President Thomas Jefferson hoped that their personal friendship could allow for a functioning government.  That did not happen and led to the first real contentious election fight in American History, the Election of 1800.

The Original Electoral College Vote of 1800 (National Archives)

Election of 1800 - This election season was as long as any and saw for the first time, a coordinated state-by-state effort by both parties to line up electoral votes. In the end, the "Jeffersonian Republicans" were the most effective. They were so effective at lining up disciplined electoral votes that the intended presidential candidate, Thomas Jefferson, received the same number of electoral votes as the intended vice presidential candidate Aaron Burr. With a tie in the Electoral College, the election went to the Federalist-controlled House which, after many threats and heated debates, selected Jefferson as President and Burr as Vice President. What made this election more significant than the electoral battle itself is that it marked the first transition of political power in American History. One ruling party stepped down peacefully while another gained power without making any drastic changes or witnessing any violence. This was remarkable for the time period, especially given recent European history.

Election of 1824 - After an eight year period of a one-party system, four candidates vied for the presidency in an election where some states were beginning to count the popular vote in elections. Furthermore, states were eliminating property requirements for voting ushering in the start of universal white male suffrage, known as an "era of the common man." In the final tally, Andrew Jackson emerged with more popular and electoral votes than any other candidate. However, he did not have a majority of all possible votes. By the Constitution, the election went to the House of Representatives. Under the leadership of Speaker Henry Clay who viewed Jackson as dangerous, the House chose John Quincy Adams instead. Jackson's supporters claimed a stolen election and the result was four years of misery for Adams.

Election of 1828 - Four years later, there was no electoral controversy in selecting Andrew Jackson as president. Two major developments came out of this election: (1) more "common men" now had the right to vote in an election where personal character attacks hit an all-time high and (2) the solidification of a distinct two-party political system.

Election of 1860 - Despite close electoral contests, partisanship or campaign controversies, every change in leadership has witnessed a peaceful transition of power - except this one.  Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860 without any southern electoral votes gave states like South Carolina an excuse to secede from the union.  That crisis led to four years of a bloody Civil War.  For more, see my related posts on the Civil War at 150. 

Election of 1876 - After bitter years of Civil War and Reconstruction, this election pitted Republican James Garfield against Democrat Samuel Tilden.  With a close campaign and a divided nation, the results were unclear.  Several states fielded disputed returns and without a clear winner in the Electoral College, the Congress convened a special electoral commission and by one vote, chose James Garfield.  It is reported that a deal was struck that in return for Garfield's election, he would remove the last remaining troops from the South officially ending Reconstruction.  With this "Compromise of 1877," Reconstruction faded away beginning an era of the "New South" and "Jim Crow." 

Election of 1896 - As the nineteenth century came to a close, Republican William McKinley defeated William Jennings Bryan who ran as both a Democrat and Populist.  This is one of the more fascinating races of the nineteenth century which served as a precursor to the types of campaigning that would take place in the twentieth century.  This was also the last election where the agrarian vote played a major role as the United States evolved into a mostly industrial economy. 

Source: RetroCampaigns.com

Election of 1912 - Similar to the current election battle, this election gave voters a distinct choice of differing economic visions for the future of the nation, albeit three choices.  Incumbent President William Howard Taft was challenged within the Republican Party by his predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt.  When Republicans nominated Taft for a second term over "TR," Roosevelt joined the Progressive Party and ran as a third-party candidate.  This party was nicknamed the "Bull Moose Party" after a famous TR speech.  With the split among normal Republican voters, Progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson won the election with only 41% of the popular vote.  The major issue in this election, similar to today, involved the proper role of the federal government in the economy.  Wilson's election illustrates a general rule in the game of politics: when a traditional voting group is split in two, the other side usually wins (example: Bill Clinton's election in 1992 over George Bush and Ross Perot; exception to the rule: Truman's election in 1948).  Another notable fact, maybe an alarming one, is the 6% of the popular vote gained by Socialist candidate Eugene Debs. 

Election of 1932 - This election serves as the most famous example of the economy playing the deciding role in selecting a president.  In the depths of the Great Depression, voters overwhelming turned out Republican Herbert Hoover in favor of the eloquent Democrat from New York, Franklin D. Roosevelt and his "New Deal."  The New Deal initiated a dramatic change in the role of the federal government and led to the creation of dozens of government programs and regulatory agencies.  These initiatives relied on planned deficit spending, an idea still debated today and resulted in the doubling of the national debt.  Though many New Deal programs were temporary, some major reforms remain in place today - most famously, Social Security.  Unfortunately, the New Deal did not resolve the Great Depression and in fact, the economy got worse by the mid-1930s.  It would take the mobilization for World War II to finally lift the economy back to pre-1929 levels. 

Election of 1940 - Though Roosevelt's popularity declined in his second term, the overwhelming issue in this campaign was the outbreak of World War II in Europe.  As a result, voters chose to retain FDR for an unprecedented third term instead of selecting businessman Wendell Wilkie for the Oval Office. The possibility of a third term would be removed later by the Twenty-Second Amendment.

Election of 1948 - In another three-candidate race, President Harry Truman unexpectedly defeated Republican Thomas Dewey.  In this race, Truman was challenged from within his own party by Strom Thurmond who gained the nomination of the southern States Rights, or Dixiecrat, Party.  This election proved that the party split rule does not always apply.  Journalists had expected that the split in the Democrat vote would easily hand the election to Dewey.  Some newspapers ran the headline "Dewey defeats Truman" ahead of receiving the final results, now made famous by the image to the left. 

Election of 1952 - In this election, television played a major role for the first time as voters selected General Dwight Eisenhower over Democrat Adlai Stevenson.  For the influence of television in presidential campaigns, see the Museum of the Moving Image's site, The Living Room Candidate (www.livingroomcandidate.org).  This site archives hundreds of campaign commercials from every election, 1952 to 2008 (and soon, 2012).

Election of 1960 - Television continued to play an influential role in politics as this election witnessed the first televised debate between Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy and Republican Vice President Richard Nixon.  Kennedy's appeal on television boosted his image and aided in his eventual electoral victory, though the election was very close and is somewhat clouded with later reports of voter fraud. Kennedy is the first Catholic to be elected to the presidency.

Election of 1968 - This election served as one of the most divisive in history.  With the height of the controversial war in Vietnam, the stunning announcement that incumbent President Lyndon Johnson would not seek a second term and the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, this election produced another three-way split.  In a contentious nominating convention in Chicago with violent protests outside the convention hall, Democrats nominated Vice President Hubert Humphrey.  Republicans selected former Vice President Richard Nixon and southern Democrats formed the American Independent Party nominating former Alabama governor George Wallace for president.  Nixon easily won the election promising "peace with honor" in Vietnam. 

Election of 1980 - Ronald Reagan's election over Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1980 marked a change in the political landscape of the United States.  While the nation experienced what historians have labeled a "conservative revolution," the South began the transition from a Democrat stronghold to a mostly Republican region, at least in national elections.  Also, the politics of this era helped define the terms "conservative" and "liberal" used today. 

Source: CBSNews.com

Election of 1992 - As referenced earlier, this election helps support the party-split rule where Democrat Bill Clinton won the presidency with a minority of the popular vote over Republican George H.W. Bush and Independent Ross Perot. 

Source: USA Today

Election of 2000 - In one of the closest races in history, the results of this election between Republican Governor George W. Bush and Democrat Vice President Al Gore were unknown after election night.  As the results came in state-by-state, the race was "too close to call" in the Electoral College.  The final tally came down to the state of Florida where the race was also too close to call.  The first results indicated that George W. Bush had won Florida, but only by a small number of votes.  By state law, this close of an election result mandated a recount by hand.  This launched a media and legal circus in Florida lasting weeks as the physical recount took place.  In the end, the recount determined that Bush won Florida by 537 votes and thus, won all of Florida's 25 electoral votes placing him above the required 270 to win.  This result was later upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore (2000).  George W. Bush won the presidency because he won in the Electoral College, even though Al Gore had won the popular vote.  The controversy did, however, serve to educate the public on the constitutional process of selecting a president. On a personal note, this was my first presidential election as a voter.

To understand the Electoral College system, see my handout linked here. 

Election of 2008 - Barack Obama is the first African-American elected to the presidency, certainly a historic moment.  Whether or not he has achieved his campaign promises will be decided by voters in this election.

Leadership

Last week, I finished Michael Beschloss' Presidential Courage. One recurring theme I found among the leaders he chose was that these men often defied the recommendations of their advisors, sometimes defied their political parties and at times even went against public sentiment to make bold decisions that they thought best for the nation in both the short-term and in the long-term success and/or security of the republic. This is truly the mark of a good leader and exactly what the founders intended when they made the courageous decision to invest strong executive powers into one elected official.  This decision was in deed courageous and remarkable given the past experience the founders had with executive authority.  That topic is the subject of my next book, Ray Raphael's Mr. President: How and Why the Founders Created a Chief Executive.

As for Presidential Courage, here is a brief synopsis of the courageous presidential acts performed by the leaders that Beschloss featured:

George Washington - Washington signed Jay's Treaty with Britain to avoid a future and un-winnable war. Washington stood his ground despite a groundswell of vicious public opposition and even threats of assassination. Despite the outcry, this action preserved the young republic and helped open the west to settlement.

John Adams - Defying his own Federalist supporters who wished for war with France, Adams pursued peace. Though this decision and the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts certainly contributed to his defeat in 1800, seeking peace prevented the young republic from a costly conflict that could easily have divided the nation.

Andrew Jackson - Jackson is probably the most decisive and at times, the most stubborn president in history.  Jackson personified his distrust of the Bank of the United States and despite warnings of political and economic consequences, he vetoed the re-charter bill, withdrew federal deposits and effectively destroyed the national bank.  Though a financial panic did ensue, Jackson held firm that a national bank controlled by private interests was dangerous to the long term economic security of the nation.  Jackson also strengthened presidential power and was the first to effectively use the power of veto.  In his view, the role of the President was to represent the interests of all Americans as opposed to members of Congress who represented only a district or a state.

Abraham Lincoln - Lincoln is an easy pick for "presidential courage."  Clearly, Lincoln faced the most daunting challenge of any president - holding the nation together despite a bitter and costly civil war.  As the Election of 1864 approached, it seemed to many - including Lincoln himself - that he would lose to his former general, George McClellan.  Despite the political wisdom of the time which suggested that Lincoln find some compromise with the South, Lincoln held firm to his position that peace could only be achieved when the South renounced secession and accepted the emancipation of slaves.  Fortunately, victories in the South helped end a potential third party threat by Radical Republicans and secured Lincoln's re-election.

Theodore Roosevelt - After decades of "forgettable" presidents, Theodore Roosevelt charged on to the national stage after the assassination of William McKinley.  Unlike his recent predecessors, Roosevelt saw the presidency as a vehicle for needed reform.  Despite being labeled as "mad" and despite the political backlash, Roosevelt successfully mediated the Anthracite Coal Mine Strike of 1902 and used his Justice Department to enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890.

Franklin D. Roosevelt - Though FDR gained the presidency by promising to end the depression with his New Deal, the depression did not end and by 1938, Roosevelt lost a considerable amount of popularity and support in Congress.  However, by the time he ran for an unprecedented third term in 1940, Americans were concerned about another world war raging across the Atlantic.  Though public sentiment supported neutrality, Roosevelt pushed the nation towards support of Britain, the "defenders of democracy."  The climax of this support was the Lend Lease Act of 1941 which pledged the United States as the "arsenal of democracy" while the people of Great Britain persevered the aerial blitz of Nazi Germany.  FDR was a masterful politician and at times, vicious and deceiving, yet he was able to lead the nation towards "all aid short of war" recognizing the very real threat that Hitler posed to security and freedom.

Harry S. Truman - Truman never expected that he would gain the presidency, nor did many in Washington.  However, with Roosevelt's death, Truman gained the presidency at a pivotal moment in American History - the closing months of World War II.  While Truman is famous for his actions in the early years of the Cold War and his "buck stops here" attitude, Beschloss chronicles Truman's support for the creation of Israel as a nation-state.  Despite opposition in his own cabinet and the risks of a geopolitical backfire, Truman eventually came to support the creation of a homeland in Palestine for eastern European Jews.

John F. Kennedy - Though JFK had supported civil rights earlier in his political career, as a candidate and early president, Kennedy chose to be very cautious in his actions.  As a Democrat, he needed support from southern white Democrats to gain national office and achieve some of his other domestic goals.  Kennedy expected that he could deal more effectively with civil rights after re-election in 1964.  However, events like James Meredith's enrollment at Ole Miss and the violence in Birmingham, Alabama pushed Kennedy to more boldly support civil rights.  In a televised speech in 1963, Kennedy declared the struggle for civil rights a "moral issue" which helped strengthen the movement.  After Martin Luther King's march on Washington, which Kennedy asked King to postpone, Kennedy began work on major civil rights legislation.  Even though he was unable to push this bill through Congress before his assassination in November 1963, Lyndon Johnson did sign the Civil Rights Act into law in 1964.

Ronald Reagan - The last president featured by Beschloss is Ronald Reagan.  When Reagan entered office, the official Cold War stance had been a policy of detente.  However, Reagan took the bold stance that detente would never end the Cold War, only prolong the conflict between freedom and tyranny.  Despite political advice, Reagan held firm in his negotiations with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev - even walking out of a meeting at Reykjavik, Iceland.  With Reagan's strong stance, his support of a missile shield in Europe and his famous "tear down this wall" speech in Berlin, Reagan helped bring about the end of the Cold War.

Photos Credit:http://www.biography.com/people/groups/political-leaders/us-presidents/photos

Presidential Politics

This summer, I decided to shape my reading list around presidential politics (of course, after I finished the War of 1812 book).  This is an area of history that has always fascinated me, ever since I took a political science course on the modern presidency in college.  I also figured that this would be a timely move given the dramatic election season that is well underway.

The Official Presidential Seal

I just completed two books related to the presidency.  First was The Presidents Club by Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy.  This book gave a detailed look inside the most exclusive fraternity in the world, the privileged club of presidents.  Gibbs and Duffy chronicled the relationships of sitting presidents and ex-presidents, from the time Harry Truman reached out to Herbert Hoover to today, the relationship of Barack Obama and his predecessors.  Throughout these stories, the authors point out the basic rules - whether spoken or not - that presidents obey in "the club."  While most of these relationships have been cordial, not all presidents (and ex-presidents) have followed the rules.  Some were notoriously devious while some, despite bitter elections and rhetoric, have been amazingly gracious.  At times, this book seemed like a soap opera and fittingly, I had a hard time putting it down (just ask my wife!).

Here's a good blog post with images of the presidential fraternity:
http://wskg.org/pbs/former-presidents-look-one-another-advice-friendship

The second book and my third of the summer was George W. Bush's Decision Points.  Presidential memoirs have become an expectation for ex-presidents and they do serve an important historical purpose - shedding light into the complicated decision making process of a president.  Once a president leaves office, he faces the judgment of history.  Naturally, presidents hope to influence their legacy in the prism of history.  This was certainly the case when Ulysses S. Grant published his famous Memoirs in the remaining months of his life.  President Bush's memoir is focused on the most consequential decisions of his presidency, including very important events in recent history - 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Katrina, just to name a few.  It may be too soon for historians to assess the Bush presidency; however, this book is an insightful look at how President Bush shaped his decisions and why he made the decisions he did.  Bush notes his achievements, but also admits mistakes.  Where I find this book most helpful is how President Bush lays out the major events of his term in a topical sense, clearly illustrating each major decision as part of a larger chain of events.  It is easy for pundits and even us Americans to judge a president in the moment, when the decisions are made.  However, reading this president's rationale and in the context of events and facts, including those not known to the public at the time, lends to a much better understanding of the decisions and the man.  Regardless of one's politics and regardless of whether readers agree or disagree with Mr. Bush, this book does help shed light into one of the more momentous presidencies in recent history.

The next item on my summer reading list is Michael Beschloss' Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How They Changed America, 1789-1989.  Beschloss is a renowned presidential historian, appearing in many documentaries on the modern presidency and author of several works.  I had the opportunity to hear him speak at the Florida Forum in October 2008, just prior to the election of Barack Obama.

I close with a image collection of ex-presidents and related images for this post.