Cathcon's History Paper Thread

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

What is important in remembering when examining Buchanan’s Presidency is his belief in the Constitution and that it should provide significant backing for whatever the major public policy was at the time. Stating in his auto-biography “That the Constitution does not confer upon Congress power to interfere with slavery in the states, had been admitted by all parties and confirmed by all judicial decisions ever since the origin of the Federal Government. This doctrine was emphatically recognized in the House of Representatives in the days of Washington, during the first session of Congress, and has never seriously been called into question. Hence, it became necessary for the abolitionists, in order to furnish a pretext for their assault against Southern slavery, to appeal to a law higher than the Constitution.” Buchanan goes on to point out how slavery had in fact become a domestic institution, and one controlled by the States, and how the abolitionists sought to inter-mingle religion and politics in order to accomplish their goals which were in fact not backed by the Constitution. “It was sinful to live in a political confederacy which tolerated slavery in any of the states composing it; and if this could not be eradicated, it would become a sacred duty for the free states to separate themselves from their guilty associates… The anti-slavery part in its career never stopped to reflect that slavery was a domestic institution, exclusively under the control of the sovereign States where it existed; and therefore, if sinful in itself, it was certainly not the sin of the people of New England.” (Buchanan, 9, 10) Buchanan has laid out his entire argument for the Constitutionality of his beliefs and how his opponents and critics were themselves against the Law of the Land. In this buildup throughout the first chapter of Buchanan’s auto-biography, it is obvious where Buchanan will soon be taking his argument. One of the greatest criticisms of his Presidency is how, upon the outbreak of secession, he declared that the secession was illegal, and yet at the same time, the Federal Government had no right to enforce the law against such illegalities. Claiming specifically that he had “no authority to decide what shall be the relation between the Federal Government and South Carolina”. (Britannica Online) One issue that will not often come up is that despite claiming he had no right to intervene in secession, he did declare that the Federal Government could target individuals in response to the secession. As well, he defended Lincoln against the outcry of secession streaming from the South, announcing “The election of any one of our citizens to the office of President does not itself afford just cause for the dis-solving of the union.” (Sandburg, 189) This leads into another argument, the argument of why the South seceded.

   Over the Alabama mass meeting, the banner flared “Resistance to Lincoln is Obedience to God”. Such were the views down South following the 1860 election which had resulted in the victory of Abraham Lincoln of the abolitionist Republican Party. “Against Southern that South Carolina wait till President Buchanan’s term ended, Robert Barnwell Rhett and his forces had manipulated the precise dramatic event of secession.” Rhett, a Congressman and Senator, and a devout secessionist, had very clearly staked the secession against the perceived enemy of the South, Abraham Lincoln. (Sandburg, 187) Buchanan is often blamed for the circumstances to pit North against South. That is very simply not true. The Compromise of 1850 had occurred under Fillmore (Wilentz, 708), the Kansas-Nebraska Act had been passed under Pierce (Bennet, 288), and the Dred Scott decision had been decided only two days into Buchanan’s term (Bennett, 293). Buchanan had the backing of the South as a Presidential candidate (WIlentz, 662, 669) and in the controversy over Bleeding Kansas (Sandburg, 136). The South had no reason to secede under Buchanan. They did, however, have reason to secede under Lincoln.

   Despite his faults, President James Buchanan was largely a victim of circumstance. Ending his auto-biography Mr. Buchanan’s Administration on the Eve of Rebellion, Buchanan would state, rather sincerely “In conclusion, it may be permitted to me to remark that I have often warned my countrymen of the dangers that now surround us. This may be the last time I shall refer to the subject officially. I feel that my duty has been faithfully, though it may be imperfectly, performed; and whatever the result may be, I shall carry to my grave the consciousness that I at least meant well for my country.” (Buchanan, 295-296)

Works Cited

1.   Bennet, William J. America: The Last, Best, Hope. United States of America:    Nelson Current, 2006. Print.
2.   Buchanan, James. Mr. Buchanan’s Administration on the Eve of Rebellion. United    States of America: D. Appleton & Company, 1865. Print.
3.   “Buchanan, James”. ourcampagins.com. Our Campaigns. n.d. Webb. 11/18/09.
4.   Graebner, Norman A. A History of the American People, United States of    America: McGraw Hill, 1975. Print.
5.   “James Buchanan”. Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online.    Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2011. Web. 01 Dec. 2011.
6.   Sandburg, Carl. Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years and the War Years. United    States of America: Harcourt, Brace, & Co, 1993. Print.
7.   Weinstein, Allen, and David Rubel. The Story of America: Freedom and Crisis    from Settlement to Superpower. United States of America: DK Publishing    Inc., 2002. Print.
8.   Wilentz, Sean. The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln. United    States of America: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. Print.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Numbering is mandatory, as is whatever not footnoting is called.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Yes, my teacher is an idiot. An idiot who knows a lot, but an idiot just the same.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Christ. I've got one page to go and one paragraph to go to complete what I'd hoped was already completed. My teacher (from here on out to be referred to as "Miller") is demanding not merely three supporting paragraphs, but four. I'm defending James Buchanan here! There's not much you can ask for that I haven't given in regards to that! Any ideas? Given I will absolutely not be able to work on it tomorrow, this is pretty much the eleventh hour for me.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Apparently I got an 85 on it. The bastard.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

What did "Miller" say was wrong with it?

No idea. My school has a system where you can see your grades online & according to what I heard, I got 85%, down 1% from the last paper.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Third quarter is 1865-1932. I'm considering William McKinley as my topic. Good thing about him is that Miller knows nothing about him, and thus he can't try to dictate my paper.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Third quarter is 1865-1932. I'm considering William McKinley as my topic. Good thing about him is that Miller knows nothing about him, and thus he can't try to dictate my paper.

Does it have to be a bio paper?  A paper on the Granger movement would be interesting to do as the period of its relevance basically is the same as the time frame you're covering.

I had honestly never heard of the Granger movement before. Looking it up, it seems interesting. No, it doesn't have to be biographical. However, I like to focus on a specific election or specific president as the starting point of writing a paper.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Are sticking with McKinley?

Yeah. Note cards are due Wednesday in fact.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'm starting the rough draft of my McKinley paper today. My hope is to be able to make it some epic fifteen page paper (short for college, long for where I'm at). If I'm correct, the minimum is eight pages.

What is it about McKinley are you going for?

After reading a short biography on him, my mission is to prove that he was, in fact, significant. AMong his accomplishments were the institution of the Gold Standard (an economic system that lasted throughout the Republican power cycle of 1896-1932), the beginning of America's emergence as a superpower (Spanish-American War, foreign policy, etc.), and assembling a winning urban coalition of labor and business that would serve as the Republican base during the ensuing era of political dominance. I'll also mention how thanks to the New Deal Era and Teddy Roosevelt, he is consistently overshadowed and also cast as some arch-conservative imperialist who did nothing but advance business interests. He was actually the beginning of the progressive era (much to my dismay) and had served as the opponent of the eastern big business establishment and a champion for labor while in the House.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Ya just gotta hate, don't'cha?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

sh**t man, left my outline at school and can't find the file it was saved in.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Ya just gotta hate, don't'cha?

Me?  What'd I do?

Calling even one of his accomplishments "bad". That's hatin' right there.

ANyway, the rough draft is due tomorrow! I've gotten to page eleven and I'm on the last support. Following the support, I've got the conclusion and then should be done.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Well I'm done and we'll see how the reaction is when Miller gets it and sees my TR-bashing in the last supporting paragraph.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Ha ha! Got an 91% on my paper! Thanks to grade inflation, that counts as an A! Mwahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

1. Could you share it with us like you did with Buchanan?
2. Is another one coming up?

Once I get to a computer, I'll do just that (assuming I can find a file). And yes, ranging 1933-Present. I typically focus on presidents and/or elections, & given the amount I've read on Nixon & the I trysting thongs you can tie him in with, I just wrote him down. If I stick with him, I'll either do foreign policy or his work at forging the modern GOP. thanks for asking.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Sorry for the mis-spellings in my previous post. I'm on my iPod right now.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Sorry for the mis-spellings in my previous post. I'm on my iPod right now.

Oh.  I see how it is.  You're intentionally not responding to me.  That feels real good

Hey man, I been there (damn you, girl on twitter who I used to have great convos with, but now seems to suddenly hate me. Reminder: investigate cause for hate).

Not exactly sure what I'll do on Nixon, and he came into political office following FDR's death. Not sure if I could pull off my subtle President bashing that I did in McKinley, but we shall see.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Christopher Clark
A.P. U.S. History
Mr. Miller
March 10th, 2012

William McKinley: Pinhead or Patriot?

   “Nearer my God to Thee… His will be done!” William McKinley coughed out as Senator Mark Hanna clung to his dying friend, shouting, “William, William, speak to me!” But Hanna would hear no more as those last words left McKinley’s lips. At 2:15 A.M., September 14th, 1901, William McKinley, 25th President of the United States of America, was dead. (Morris2: 3, 9) In 1896, Mark Hanna had written, rather fatefully, “Your duty to the country is to live for four years from next March.” (Glad) McKinley had made it just over five months past that goal. Over the rest of the day, newspaper boys shouted the news of McKinley’s death and as to who would succeed him. Secretary of State John Hay found himself weeping at continually hearing this news shouted outside his window. He had already worked for two slain Presidents—Lincoln and Garfield—and now was his third. Meanwhile, on a buckboard bouncing down the slopes of slopes of Mount Marcy, the newly minted 26th President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, made his way toward his destiny. (Morris2: 3-4, 9)

   McKinley had experienced a long and steady rise in Ohio and national politics. His start had not really been in politics at all. In fact, his first contact with political power had been on the bloody battlefield of the Civil War where he had served under future President Rutherford B. Hayes. During that time he served honorably in the Ohio 23rd, even braving cannon ball fire to deliver supplies to soldiers trapped on the opposite side of Antietam Creek. (Phillips: 23) Following the end of the war, he became a lawyer in his native Ohio, passing the bar in 1867 and campaigning for Hayes’ gubernatorial bid that year. (Moore: 276) In 1869, he entered his first elected position, that of Stark County Prosecutor, a position he held for only the two year term as he lost re-election in 1871. McKinley, nevertheless, found himself a prosperous law career over the next five years or so. (Phillips: 25) His entrance into national politics came in 1876. The same year his former mentor, Rutherford B. Hayes ran for President—and was eventually elected in the Compromise of 1877—McKinley was elected to the House of Representatives as a Congressman from Ohio. (Moore: 234, 276-277) The fact that he entered Congress just as his friend and political educator entered the White House gave the new young politician a leg up in his political career as he was a common guest at the White House. This would extend for a few months following Hayes’ Presidency as McKinley was friends as well with Hayes’ successor, fellow Ohioan James A. Garfield. (Phillips: 26) One thing that must be mentioned of McKinley's background and character is his commitment to his wife. Falling ill in 1873 with seizures and convulsions believed to be or resemble epilepsy after the birth of their second child—Ida, named after her mother, who lived on five months--Mrs. McKinley needed caring for. These seizures and symptoms would afflict her the rest of her life and McKinley would be her devoted caretaker all those years up until his own death in 1901. Known by his constituents as a loving, caring, and devoted husband, he would bow to her window every morning before leaving for work. (Moore: 276-277)

   One of the prime motivating forces in McKinley’s political career was his background. He came from the state of Ohio where hard work was the law of the land in many ways. There was a gap between the rich and poor much smaller than that of the East Coast where bankers and moguls presided over cities teeming with low paid industrial workers. Both he and Abraham Lincoln came from backgrounds distrusting of “nonlaboring capital”—the banks of the east. It was this background that shaped McKinley as he grew up a child of mid-western republicanism. It was this that led him to defend striking coalminers in June of 1876 and this that led him to a career based on defending the interests of labor. (Phillips: 31-32) During his time in the House, he continued rising in power, even in the face of setbacks. His role as a leader at the 1884 Republican National Convention (Morris1, 256) and subsequent re-entry into the House of Representatives following his re-election defeat of 8 votes in 1882 (Moore: 277)—this had been a lucky break for the Democrats as year after year they had gerry-mandered his home district to fill it with areas not so friendly to him. (Phillips: 27) Nevertheless, McKinley was practically unstoppable. By 1890 when the McKinley Tariff Act, which raised tariffs to the record high 48%, was passed (Moore: 277) and he was subsequently defeated (Morris1: 436)—which in itself was more a product, yet again of Democratic gerrymandering—it was but a minor setback as he was elected Governor of Ohio in 1891 (Phillips: 65) Over two terms and five years later he would be elected 25th President of the United States of America. (Bennett: 471)

   History has not judged McKinley kindly. Certainly being the predecessor to the inimitable Theodore Roosevelt has played a role in that. As well, the era of tariffs, the Gold Standard, and Big Business was drowned out by the New Deal Era and with it a new class of historians who portrayed McKinley as the conservative, mediocre, un-intelligent, imperialist, pawn of Big Business. As well, perceptions of stupidity and un-learnedness were made more common among this new breed of historian. These stemmed through his silence, tact, and ability to please people. (Phillips: 2-3, 26) It is these perceptions which this paper means to correct.

   In fact, McKinley is not the symbol of corporatist conservatism that he seems to represent in the few who even care to discuss his Presidency. Upon examination of his career and his accomplishments, he could be judged as the opposite of what he has come to be seen as. Biographer Kevin Phillips cites his career dis-trust of corporations which ranged from condemning greed to refusing to declining jobs in the private economy even when he was running low on funds. (Phillips: 38) As well, there remains the idea that he was insignificant. William McKinley was a significant, re-aligning President who ended the Gilded Age, ushered in a thirty-six year era of domination for the Republican Party, shaped economics for that time period, and had the United States debut as a new world power.

   Even before he was President, the effects of McKinley’s status as the Republican nominee could be felt. Over the last two decades, Presidential elections had become incredibly close. Even those that yielded Republican victories such as 1876, 1880, and 1888 had been won by only a few votes, and in 1876 and 1888 the Republican nominee had even lost the popular vote. The last time before 1896 when a victory won the majority of the popular vote was 1872 where Grant won 55% in a nation still undergoing Reconstruction. (Leip) McKinley on the other hand was the first Republican nominee to win a majority of the vote in a nation no longer affected by the corruption and controversy of Reconstruction. (Phillips: 57) McKinley won 51.02% to Bryan’s 46.71. Also what must be noted is not just the fact of his majority, but of what groups and where McKinley won. Looking four years back, the Democratic nominee former President Grover Cleveland had won by taking the Mid-Western states of Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana, and the North-Eastern states of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. The West had been split between the incumbent Republican Harrison and the Populist candidate James Weaver. Flashing forward four years, in 1896, the Republicans won every state in the North-East. In the Industrial Mid-West, states such as Illinois and Indiana that had previously gone to Cleveland went to McKinley by large margins. Meanwhile, out West, Bryan won states no Democrats had ever had a chance in before: Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming; even further West in places like Nevada where silver mines were common, Bryan took states by 70 and 80% margins. This marked a shift in the way states voted and this basic pattern of the North-East being solidly Republican, the Mid-West being only slightly less so, and the West being the swing area would remain in effect until the next political re-alignment, the New Deal Era, began in 1932. (Leip)

   Looking at some numbers, between 1896 and 1916, the states of Colorado and Nevada went for the Democratic nominee five out of six times. Nebraska went Democratic four of those six times. Previously all three of those states, when they voted, had been reliably Republican. (Leip) Looking at this further, one must compare the map of 1896 to that of 1916. In 1916, it was a basic two way race between the Democratic nominee, President Woodrow Wilson, and the Republican nominee, Supreme Court Justice and former New York Governor Charles Evan Hughes. (Moore: 328) Wilson won the race, but only narrowly, and the map that fateful November night bore striking resemblances to that twenty years earlier. Nearly all of the Mid-Western states Wilson had won in the vote-splitting election of 1912 went back into their typically Republican voting patterns. The South of course, was solid Wilson territory. What really won him re-election was the results of those same Western states that Bryan had won by large margins twenty years previous. It was the Bryan coalition, only slightly expanded geographically, that won Wilson re-election, albeit narrowly. (Leip) It was the 1896 election that formed the two coalitions, and that formed the foil to the Bryan coalition, the McKinley coalition.

   

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

What McKinley did in 1896 would preserve Republican power over the next thirty-six years. The coalition he assembled in opposition to Bryan’s farm-sided rhetoric was that of an urban, modernized America. McKinley’s status as a pro-industry Mid-Westerner and the diverse coalition that had put him in elected office in the first place was what forged this. Following Harrison’s defeat and the aging of Republican icons such as James Sherman or James G. Blaine, there were few powerful icons left in the party. (Phillips: 60)McKinley, the man who by 1896 was the party’s principle spokesperson of tariffs, the former Governor of a state where Republican Presidents typically hailed from, (Phillips: 59, 69, 27) and well experienced in both executive in both executive and legislative positions, (Moore: 275) was positioned and the likely and obvious choice for the Republican nomination. Winning as the people’s candidate against Eastern opponents such as Speaker of the House Thomas B. Reed of Maine, Governor Levi P. Morton of New York and Senator Matthew Quay of Pennsylvania, (Phillips: 70) “It marked the first time since Lincoln’s day that a nationally well-known and powerful Republican politician won his party’s presidential nomination on the first ballot—and did so by beating, rather than submitting to, the Eastern machine forces.” (Phillips: 57) With 66 ½ votes on the first ballot, McKinley was nominated. (Phillips: 71) The coalition that he assembled in the coming election would be a powerful one indeed. The prime battleground for the election was to occur in the Mid-West. With the North-East far in the Republican column and the South and Far West supporting Bryan, the election would be fought most in places like Minnesota, Illinois, and Ohio. Despite farms in the area, the place was an electoral treasure chest for McKinley. Inside that microcosm, existed “urban votes, labor, Catholics, Germans, Union veterans”. (Phillips: 76) These were all groups that either went for McKinley or shifted towards him (in a reverse of trends from previous elections) to help give him victory. McKinley, a foil to Bryan’s anti-urban rhetoric, was able to garner the support of both business and labor in the general. With workers rising to support the hero of tariffs and his “full dinner pail”, any attempts that could’ve been made to combine the working classes in support of Bryan were doomed.

   As well, the role religion played in the election is an important one. Republicans had typically been the voice of evangelical and religious communities. That was what made Catholics and Lutherans, more ritualistic, liturgical, and private with their religion than the evangelicals, vote heavily Democratic. They dis-trusted talks of great faith revivals or utopias that the evangelicals were so often focused on. However, 1896 represented a change. Those same groups that liked the Democratic party for it not touching on the religion issue found themselves rushing to the more religiously tolerant McKinley and the wake of the fire and brimstone Hell-raiser Bryan who in turn received the votes of Republican evangelicals. The two groups—Lutherans and Catholics—were decisive in McKinley’s victory in the Mid-West. With immigrant towns sprinkled throughout places like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and McKinley’s native Ohio, and Catholics and Lutherans making up roughly 65% of the vote in Wisconsin, 50% of the vote in Ohio, and 35% of the vote in Michigan, McKinley needed and got these votes. It is estimated by some that whereas Catholics had gone 25-30% Republican in 1892, they went 40-45% Republican in 1896, a very significant shift, and with both groups, a shift from 30-40% to 50-55%. (Phillips: 77-80) All in all, it was with these groups: Catholics, Lutherans, workers, and urban dwellers, and with Union veterans, a group McKinley was part of, that William McKinley was elected President in 1896 with 271 electoral votes to Bryan’s 176. (Leip)

   With elections decided largely on the economy, what must be mentioned in McKinley’s Presidency is the return to prosperity experienced under his reign. “The economy turned up in 1897 and pretty much kept rising through 1902, save for a very mild contraction between late 1899 and late 1900.  Prosperity had a new base in place. According to economist Milton Friedman, during this 1897 to 1902 rebound, the U.S. money supply rose some 80 percent, largely brought about by booming new gold production in Australia, South Africa, and the Yukon. Per capita output, in turn, rose by an average 4 ½ percent a year.” (Phillips: 113) For many, the new prosperity was true. Measurements of all sorts point to economic improvement. Biographer Kevin Phillips puts McKinley’s reign just behind that of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in terms of success, popularity, and its ability to forge a new political coalition following an economic downturn under a President of the opposite party. Of note are the mid-term elections. While traditionally, Presidents were crippled for half of their term by incredible swings in party popularity, the Republicans were there to stay, (Phillips: 113) losing only 19 seats in the House of Representatives (Chantrill) and gaining seats in California, Kansas, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming. (Phillips: 117) The winning ability for the GOP would continue as in the 1902 mid-terms, they in fact gained eleven House seats, arriving at a 208 vote majority. (Chantrill) All in all, economists credit the opening of new markets in various new U.S. acquisitions across the globe as a deciding factor in the recovery that took place under McKinley. Without the massive price decreases and resulting panics that came with America’s over-production that was by then typical, the economy was in a much better shape and there were few things that McKinley liked more than productivity, and even fewer things Americans liked better than a good and strong economy. (Glad)

   Perhaps the greatest of McKinley’s accomplishments as President is his successful and effective foreign policy. While credit often goes to Theodore Roosevelt for launching the United States into the world arena as a superpower, the true man to credit is the one and only William McKinley. The foreign policy of his administration, from the Spanish-American War, to the Boxer Rebellion, to the Open Door Policy, to the growing alliance with Britain, the gaining of large amounts of new territory, and the rise of Germany and Japan as two of America’s chief rivals, is such an immense subject that a discussion on it alone would be a hard one to fit into a paper.  The beginning of America’s entrance onto the world stage was of course the Spanish-American War. One of the most successful wars in American history, America lost only 385 men in combat and 2,000 to disease while Spain lost a total of 50,000 men. Through this successful war, America was launched onto the world stage. (Bennet: 485) Soon, America was at the bargaining table with one of the great powers of Europe. With peace commissioners arriving in on October 1st, the treaty to officially end the war was in the works. Meanwhile, McKinley began laying down his own agenda at home. On July 7th, the U.S. Senate approved the annexation of Hawaii, leading America to officially take territory in the Pacific. (Phillips: 99-100) McKinley was a proponent of the annexation of Hawaii, seeing it as good for economic expansion. He would famously state "We need Hawaii just as much and a good deal more than we did California. It is Manifest Destiny." (Kelly) On December 10th, 1898, the Treaty of Paris ended the war, giving the United States massive new territory gains in the form of Guam, Wake Island, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. The Philippines were of great importance to McKinley’s far ranging vision as they were located close to China giving America more influence in the international debate over whether to carve up the country by European interests or to allow the massive China to remain whole. (Moore: 278, 280-281) “The terms of the Treaty of Paris did not meet universal approval in the United States, but to enthusiasts and critics alike, they marked the path of empire that McKinley had apparently chosen to follow. The acquisition of the Philippines, along with the annexation of Hawaii and, later, of Wake Island and American Samoa, provided coaling stations and bases that could prove useful for the commercial and missionary penetration of Asia.” (Glad)

From there, foreign policy proceeded with the introduction of the Open Door Policy in China. This was a response to continued troubles in the land that had once led the world. The Boxer Rebellion, an uprising led by a religions group in China that was opposed to the imperialism and industrialization of the outsiders, started this. Killing foreigners and more specifically western missionaries, the world was alarmed and prepared to strike back. McKinley and Secretary of State John Hay in response proposed to the world the Open Door Policy, allowing the six nations that had been involved in China—Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Russia, and Italy—equal trade in China. This was successful as the six nations agreed to it. The Second Open Door Policy that was issued by McKinley and Hay had those same six nations agreeing to preserve Chinese territorial integrity. As well, these same nations agreed to take part in a multi-national peacekeeping force—of which America was part of—to squelch the rebellion and return order to the country they all desired to trade in. (Moore: 281)

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

   One final note on the large and complex jumble of foreign events, imperialism, and European Empires that was the time McKinley found himself in, is the growing American alliance with England. While many Republican party leaders, from North-Eastern elitists like Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, to the Mid-Western middle class lawyer William McKinley had great reason for their dis-trust of the British (for Lodge and Roosevelt, it was their snobbery and unwillingness to recognize America as a power in its own right, for McKinley it was the threat they posed to the American industry that he was so fond of), all three would come around to the British in the age of growing American internationalism. During McKinley’s time, the bond between America and its mother country, already growing through increased interaction between the two and through the marrying of wealthy British and American families, would greatly strengthen. Britain, after all, was the only powerful European nation to openly support America in the Spanish-American War. So openly supportive was Britain that Spain pre-emptively strengthened their garrison at Gibraltar. Meanwhile, the McKinley Presidency saw great strides in the settling of any differences with Britain. Two treaties, the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty which paved the way for construction of the Panama Canal, and the resolution of the issue of the official border of Alaska, came to fruition in 1901 and 1903 respectively. Their groundwork begun while McKinley was still alive, they marked the cementing of the informal alliance between the two nations that was to exist even to present day. (Phillips: 101-104)

One of the great fallacies promoted by historians of McKinley’s legacy is that he was a corporatist Conservative. Despite paving the way for new foreign markets and trade with China and being a major proponent of tariffs (usually used back then as a way to protect rich American industrialists from foreign competition), McKinley was anything but a corporatist and in fact a Progressive. “On the great new questions as they arose, he was generally on the side of the public against the private interests.”, (Phillips: 29) wrote Robert La Follette, a Wisconsin legislator who was a noted Progressive of his day and a friend of McKinley from their days in Congress. (whitehouse) “As an ally of McKinley in the House Ways and Means Committee and later in 1896 presidential nominating politics, La Follette knew him better than most.” (Phillips: 29) McKinley had a record of defending labor in times of trouble. As a young lawyer, he had defended striking coal miners, even refusing payment. Even when he himself was in financial trouble he declined job offers from big corporations. Meanwhile, he supported women’s suffrage, changed hotels when he found they wouldn’t admit African-Americans, and had won as the candidate of the people against the conservative, pro-corporate party bosses such as Thomas Platt and Matthew Quay. Even when he was Governor and was tasked with putting down riots, he took extra care to make sure things were handled with decency and that none of the workers were harmed. All in all, McKinley was a committed Progressive. Even in comparison to his successor Theodore Roosevelt, Roosevelt seems moderate or conservative in comparison. His so-called Progressivism was drenched in his background as a member of New York’s aristocracy, and with a love for the gold standard and a derogatory view of labor unions. He in fact, supported the North-Eastern Conservative Thomas B. Reed in 1896 over McKinley at the convention. McKinley on the other hand was supported by men such as his friend Robert La Follette, and other Progressives like future Vice President Charles G. Dawes and future Iowa Governor Albert B. Cummins. It is clear who, throughout his career, consistently fell on the side of labor and the worker in opposition to corporate interests. (Phillips: 29-30, 72, 110-111)

During McKinley’s time as President—cut far too short by the bullet of Leon Czolgosz—America experienced a return to prosperity, the construction of an economic system that would remain stable for the next thirty-six years, America’s debut on the world stage as a superpower, acquisition of large amounts of new territory for the Republic-turned-Empire, an opening of trade with China, a new spirit of American internationalism, improved relations with the British, and an end to the Gilded Age and the beginning of the Progressive Era. As well, a winning coalition of votes was constructed that would either give Republicans victories or deny Democrats popular majorities until 1932. Biographer Kevin Phillips puts it best when he states in his book’s introduction, “McKinley’s was the administration during which the United States made its diplomatic and military debut as a world power. He was one of eight presidents who, either in the White House or on the battlefield, stood as principals in successful wars, and he was among the six or seven to take office in what became recognized as a major realignment of the U.S. party system. No other Republican nominee could have made of the 1896 election what McKinley did—and no other Republican would have had the stature and self-assuredness to take Theodore Roosevelt as his ticket mate in 1900. Superficially, meeting all these criteria puts the Ohioan in the rare company of Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt.”

Works Cited

About.com. Martin Kelly. About.com. February 19th, 2012 <americanhistory.about.com/cs/williammckinley/a/quotemckinley.html>

Bennet, William J. America, the Last Best Hope; Volume 1: From the Age of Discovery to a World at War. Nashville: Nelson Current, 2006. Print.

Glad, Paul W. “William McKinley”. Encyclopedia.com. 2002. February 19th, 2012. <www.encyclopedia.com/topic/William_McKinley.aspx>

Moore, Kathryn. The American President. United States: Barnes & Noble, Inc., 2007. Print.

Morris, Edmund. The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. New York: Random House, Inc., 1979. Print.

Morris, Edmund. Theodore Rex. New York: Random House, Inc., 2001. Print.

Our Campaigns. Randy Parker. February 19th, 2012 <www.ourcampaigns.com/home.html>

Phillips, Kevin. William McKinley. United States: 2003. Print.

Uselectionatlas.org. Dave Leip. Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. February 19th, 2012. <uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html>

Chantrill, Christopher. usmidtermelections.com. Web. March 14, 2012

Whitehouse.gov. The White House. February 19th, 2012. <www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/>

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Thanks man. Took me a lot of effort & research to pit it together. Up next! Dick Nixon & the Silent Majority!

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Do you know what other people did for their history papers?

Like three people worked on Wilson. One I didn't read, one talked about him as a humanitarian, and one just bashed him (which I supported). As well, there was Reconstruction, Booker T. Washington, and the Great Depression. This quarter, people are doign Eisenhower, JFK & Space, Watergate, and one guy I know is doing breaches of the constitution since WWII.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

How's "Dick Nixon & the Silent Majority" going? Are you going to have to write more papers next year?

Eh, we're supposed to be working on notecards. I got hit with an English essay on "The Great Gatsby" and turns out we have to do a research paper in English after doing an entire year of papers for History. (on top of that, she feels the need to reteach us sh**t we were taught last year for our English research paper and were re-taught this year for History) I've got it saved on google docs (this laptop didn't come with MS word pre-installed), but it's only my name and the title. Looking to my left, it looks like I have about six possible sources I can use that I already own.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Notecards due tomorrow, beginning work on them now.