William H. Taft (First Men, America's Presidents)

FIRST MEN, AMERICA’S PRESIDENTS

WILLIAM H. TAFT (A VOLUME IN FIRST MEN, AMERICA’S PRESIDENTS SERIES)

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

OTHER BOOKS IN THE FIRST MEN, AMERICA’S PRESIDENTS SERIES Barbara Bennett Peterson, Series Editor Citizen Lincoln Ward M. Mcafee 2004. ISBN 1-59454-112-4 2008. ISBN 978-1-60456-628-4 (Softcover) Theodore Roosevelt: A Political Life Thomas Lansford 2004. ISBN 1-59033-990-8 George Washington, America’s Moral Exemplar Barbara Bennett Peterson 2005. ISBN 1-59454-230-9 2011. ISBN 978-1-61761-678-5 (Softcover) John Quincy Adams: Yankee Nationalist Paul E. Teed 2005. ISBN 1-59454-797-1 2010. ISBN 978-1-60876-914-8 (Softcover) 2001. ISBN 978-1-61761-172-8 (E-book) President James K. Polk Louise Mayo 2006. ISBN 1-59454-718-1

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Preserver of Spirit and Hope Barbara Bennett Peterson 2006. ISBN 1-60021-117-8 2008. ISBN 978-1-60456-496-9 (Softcover) Benjamin Harrison: Centennial President Anne Chieko Moore and Hester Anne Hale 2006. ISBN 1-60021-606-X 2009. ISBN 978-1-60456-330-6 (Softcover) 2009. ISBN 978-1-61728-668-1 (E-book) President Zachary Taylor: The Hero President Elbert B. Smith 2007 ISBN 1-60021-602-1 2010. ISBN 978-1-60876-912-4 (Softcover) 2010. ISBN 978-1-61761-173-5 (E-book) Chester Alan Arthur: The Life of a Gilded Age Politician and President Gregory J. Dehler 2007. ISBN 1-60021-079-1 2010. ISBN 978-1-60876-913-1 (Softcover)

In the Shadow of the Great Rebellion: The Life of Andrew Johnson, Seventeenth President of the United States (1808-1875) G.L. Donhardt 2007. ISBN 1-60021-086-4 2007. ISBN 978-1-60456-944-5 (Softcover) William Henry Harrison: General and President Mary Jane Child Queen 2007. ISBN 1-600-21407-X President Herbert Hoover Donald W. Whisenhunt 2007. ISBN 1-60021-476-2 2008. ISBN 978-1-60456-382-5 (Softcover) Woodrow Wilson: The Last Romantic Mary Stockwell 2008. ISBN 1-60021-815-6 John Tyler: A Rare Career Lyle Nelson 2008. ISBN 1-60021-961-6 2011. ISBN 978-1-61761-668-6 (Softcover) Thomas Jefferson: A Public Life, A Private Life David Kiracofe 2008. ISBN 978-1-60456-061-9 2011. ISBN 978-1-61761-679-2 (Softcover)

Martin Van Buren: The Little Magician Pierre-Marie Loizeau 2008. ISBN 978-1-60456-773-1 2011. ISBN 978-1-61761-781-2 (Softcover) 2008. ISBN 978-1-61668-054-1 (E-book) James Madison: Defender of the American Republic Donald Dewey 2009. ISBN 978-1-60456-858-5 2011 ISBN 978-1-61761-669-3 (Softcover) John F. Kennedy: The New Frontier President David L. Snead 2010. ISBN 978-1-61668-925-4 2010. ISBN 978-1-61728-777-0 (E-book) Andrew Jackson in Context Matthew Warshauer 2009. ISBN 978-1-60741-709-5 William H. Taft Richard G. Frederick 2010. ISBN 978-1-60876-917-9 2010. ISBN 978-1-61668-821-9 (E-book) The Presidency of Grover Cleveland Joel D. Benson 2010. ISBN 978-1-60876-974-2

FIRST MEN, AMERICA’S PRESIDENTS

WILLIAM H. TAFT (A VOLUME IN FIRST MEN, AMERICA’S PRESIDENTS SERIES)

RICHARD G. FREDERICK

Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York

Copyright © 2010 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. For permission to use material from this book please contact us: Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175 Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers‘ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

Frederick, Richard G., 1947William H. Taft / Richard G. Frederick. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-61668-821-9 (eBook) 1. Taft, William H. (William Howard), 1857-1930. 2. Presidents--United States--Biography. 3. United States--Politics and government--1909-1913. I. Title. E762.F74 2009 973.91'2092--dc22 [B] 2010012257 ISBN: 978-1-60876-917-9

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York

CONTENTS Foreword

ix

Author’s Preface

xvii

Acknowledgements

xxi

Chapter 1

Growing Up Taft

Chapter 2

At the Bar and the Bench

19

Chapter 3

Governing the Philippines

37

Chapter 4

Secretary of War

59

Chapter 5

Becoming President

81

Chapter 6

The Presidency

101

Chapter 7

The 1912 Debacle

133

Chapter 8

After the Presidency

157

1

Bibliography

181

Index

193

FOREWORD President of the United States of America is an official title sought by many and won by only a few individuals. Most American Presidents are of high merit and political acumen and reflected wisdom, leadership, and integrity. This series titled First Men, America’s Presidents published by NOVA Science Publishers contains a book length biography of each President of the United States of America. Every book contains information on the President‘s early education, professional career, military service or political service prior to the presidency, interpretative discussion of both domestic and foreign policies during each presidency, and the conclusion of their political lives in public service. Every presidential biography in the NOVA series has been written by a professional historian or political scientist well versed in the field of presidential scholarship. The two major themes of this series are the character traits marking success in the presidency, and the changes in the office of the presidency through America‘s history. Character matters in all walks of life, but perhaps matters most within the character of the President of the United States. The duties of the President of the United States are delegated through Article II of the Constitution of the United States of America, and from the successive laws passed by Congress over time. Each president takes the Oath of Affirmation:--―I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.‖ The president‘s duties and responsibilities under the Constitution are to serve as ―Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and the Militia of the several States, when called into actual service of the United States.‖ The president may invite the counsel and opinions of his various department heads upon any subject related to the execution of the duties of

x

Barbara Bennett Peterson

their offices, either in writing or orally as has become the custom within the president‘s Cabinet. The president ―shall have the power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.‖ Every president has realized that each must administer through constitutional principles, as each was elected by the voting majority of the people to be their chief executive through the Electoral College. Each president of the United States ―shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.‖ As the president directs both the domestic and foreign activities of the government, he has the power to ―nominate and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.…appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law.‖ The president also receives foreign ambassadors and officials on behalf of the American people. The president ―shall have the Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.‖ The president under the Constitution shall give Congress a State of the Union address every year to acquaint them with his policy agenda and plans for the future. Usually in this address to Congress he recommends ―to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.‖ Above all, the president of the United States ―shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.‖ A strong role for the President had been envisioned by the Founding Fathers who rejected the obsolete Articles of Confederation and replaced the framework of government with the Constitution of the United States. Article II of the Constitution outlining the powers of the presidency provided that the office of the President would be held by one individual. It provided the President with enumerated powers including the power of the veto. And stipulated that the president‘s election would be above the control of the Congress to ensure the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances. It stipulated that the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States must govern in the name of the American people lest they ―be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.‖ From Presidents George Washington through John Quincy Adams candidates for the presidency were selected in caucuses of senators and congressmen and then the state legislatures indirectly chose the president through the selection of Electors to the Electoral College. This system had

Foreword

xi

worked for Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe—they were statesmen who held wide appeal within Congress and the state legislatures and claimed to represent the people. But as demands for greater democracy in the election process were heard, the process was changed. In the outcome of the election of 1824, John Quincy Adams was chosen president by the Congressional House of Representatives under constitutional law after no candidate had received a majority of the electoral ballots in the Electoral College. Jackson, the candidate who had received the most popular votes was not chosen president and his supporters called for more direct popular participation and worked to introduce changes. Hence, the voting process was altered in the name of democracy. In the election of 1828 President Andrew Jackson triumphed after voting had been given directly to the people and removed from the state legislatures. Democracy further triumphed by the elimination of the congressional caucuses in naming presidential candidates and the holding of national political party conventions to name them instead, allowing greater voice and participation of the people. The institution of the party convention to nominate presidential candidates remains, although winners in various state primaries command party delegates to vote the choice of the people. The Presidency, molded by the character and designs of each president, oversees command, administration, diplomacy, ceremony, legislation, and public opinion. The modern strength of the Presidency is a reflection of the mighty power of the United States within a global world. The majority of America‘s presidents have served for one four-year term or less as some died in office. Four presidents served out part of their predecessor‘s term and won subsequent re-election in their own right: Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry S. Truman, and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Only one president, Grover Cleveland, was elected to two discontinuous terms of office and thus was both the twenty-second and the twenty-fourth president of the United States. Several outstanding presidents have been elected to two four-year terms or more. They were: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, William Jefferson (―Bill‖) Clinton, and George W. Bush. Only one president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was elected for a third and fourth term. Eight presidents have achieved their office as a result of being the vice-president of a preceding president who died in office or resigned: John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon Baines

xii

Barbara Bennett Peterson

Johnson, and Gerald R. Ford. Additionally, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, Richard M. Nixon and George H.W. Bush also rose from the office of vice-president to president. Besides the vice-presidency as a stepping stone to the presidency, two thirds of the presidents elected had held congressional office earlier in their political careers such as Barack Obama, America‘s 44th President elected in 2008 who had served as a Senator from Illinois. Twenty presidents had served as Governors of states or territories before being elected. They were: Thomas Jefferson (Virginia), James Monroe (Virginia), Andrew Jackson (Florida), Martin Van Buren (New York), William Henry Harrison (Indiana), John Tyler (Virginia), James K. Polk (Tennessee), Andrew Johnson (Tennessee), Rutherford B. Hayes (Ohio), Grover Cleveland (New York), William McKinley (Ohio), Theodore Roosevelt (New York), William Howard Taft (The Philippines), Woodrow Wilson (New Jersey), Calvin Coolidge (Massachusetts), Franklin D. Roosevelt (New York), Jimmy Carter (Georgia), Ronald Reagan (California), William Jefferson Clinton (Arkansas), and George W. Bush (Texas). Some states with larger voting populations and hence more electoral votes have seen their native sons rise to the presidency of the United States. The American Presidents have come from both coasts, east and west, and from both the upper tier and the lower tier of states geographically, north and south. When elected, the president becomes the president of ‗all the people‘, not just those of his political party. Since the president acts as America‘s commander in chief, the majority of the presidents of the United States have served in the U.S. military. George Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, and Dwight David Eisenhower served in the capacity of generals. James Monroe, John Tyler, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George W. Bush also served their country in military service at various ranks, and always with dedication. The youngest elected president was John F. Kennedy (1960) at forty-three. The youngest man to ever serve as president was Theodore Roosevelt who at forty-two assumed the office following William McKinley‘s assassination. The average age for an elected president was fifty-four. The oldest elected president was Ronald Reagan at sixty-nine (1980) and seventy-three (1984).1 1

David C. Whitney and Robin Vaughn Whitney, The American Presidents, Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1993, pp. v-ix.

Foreword

xiii

One of the major features of American constitutional development has been the growth of the presidency both in power and prestige as well as in new Cabinet positions, departments and agencies under the control of the president. The Federal government has grown mightily in comparison with the States‘ governments since the inception of the Constitution. Increases in presidential powers have been occasioned by wars, depressions, foreign relations, and the agenda of the presidents themselves. Henry F. Graff, Emeritus Professor at Columbia University, described the office of the president as ―the most powerful office in the world‖ in The Presidents. The Executive Office of the President (EOP) was created during the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt upon passage by Congress of the Reorganization Act of 1939. The EOP originally included the White House Office (WHO), the Bureau of the Budget, the Office of Government Reports, the National Resources Planning Board, and the Liaison Office for Personnel Management. In addition, wrote Henry F. Graff, the 1939 Act provided that an ―office for emergency management‖ may be formed ―in the event of a national emergency, or threat of a national emergency.‖ 2 Today the White House Office has become ―the political as well as policy arm of the chief executive.‖ The larger, all encompassing Executive Office of the President has expanded through time to include a myriad number of departments in addition to the first five listed above and the president is advised by nearly 60 active boards, committees and commissions. During and immediately after World War II the following additional departments within the purview of the EOP were organized: Committee for Congested Production Areas, 1943-1944, War Refugee Board, 1944-1945, Council of Economic Advisers, 1946-, National Security Council, 1947-, and National Security Resources Board, 1947-1953. During the Cold War, additions to the EOP were made adding the following departments: Telecommunications Adviser to the President, 1951-1953, Office of the Director for Mutual Security, 1951-1954, Office of Defense Mobilization, 1952-1958, President‘s Advisory Committee on Government Organization, 1953-1961, Operations Coordinating Board, 1953-1961, President‘s Board of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence Activities, 19561961, Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization, 1958-1962, and National Aeronautics and Space Council, 1958-1993. By the Sixties, some of the earlier departments organized in the 1939 to 1960 decades were allowed to close, with newer agencies with a new focus and expanded technology taking their 2 Henry F. Graff, Editor, The Presidents, New York: Charles Scribner‘s Sons, Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 2nd edition, 1996, Appendix C pp. 743-745.

xiv

Barbara Bennett Peterson

place. These newer agencies included: President‘s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, 1961-1977, Office of Emergency Planning, 1962-1969, Office of Science and Technology, 1962-1973, Office of Economic Opportunity, 1964-1975, Office of Emergency Preparedness, 1965-1973, National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development, 19661971, Council on Environmental Quality, 1969-, Council for Urban Affairs, 1969-1970, and Office of Intergovernmental Relations, 1969-1973. By the mid-Seventies, once again there was a general reorganization with some of the earlier departments and offices being swept away and replaced by newer agencies reflecting new presidential agendas. Many of the new agencies reflected the urgencies in domestic policies and included: the Domestic Council, 1970-1978, Office of Management and Budget, 1970-, Office of Telecommunications Policy, 1970-1977, Council on International Economic Policy, 1971-1977, Office of Consumer Affairs, 1971-1973, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention, 1971-1975, Federal Property Council, 1973-1977, Council on Economic Policy, 1973-1974, Energy Policy Office, 1973-1974, Council on Wage and Price Stability, 1974-1981, Energy Resource Council, 1974-1977, Office of Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, 1974-, Presidential Clemency Board, 1974-1975, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1976-, Office of Administration, 1977-, and Domestic Policy Staff, 1978-1981. Many of the departments, councils and agencies organized as part of the Executive Office of the President by the late Seventies and early Eighties included: Office of Policy Development, 1981-, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 1981-, National Critical Materials Council, 1984-, Office of National Drug Control Policy, 1988-, National Economic Council, 1993-. By the 21st Century the EOP continued several effective agencies started earlier: Council of Economic Advisers 1946-, National Security Council 1947-, Council on Environmental Quality 1964-, Office of Management and Budget 1970-, Office of Science and Technology Policy 1976-, Office of Administration 1977-, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 1981-, Office of Policy Development 1981-, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy 1988-. In addition to the White House Office of the president, the Office of the Vice President functions and is administered as part of the EOP.3 At the turn of the millennium the department of Homeland Security 2001- was established by presidential Executive Order and

3 Henry F. Graff, Editor, The Presidents, New York: Charles Scribner‘s Sons, Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 3rd edition, 2002, Appendix C pp. 743-747.

Foreword

xv

administered by the Executive Office of the President that continues to be evolutionary in response to new issues, demands, and events. Capable presidents have responded to America‘s changing needs and responsibilities by retooling their administrations to meet new crises, opportunities, and challenges. This series First Men, America’s Presidents published by NOVA explains the personal and public life of each President of the United States. Their qualities of character and leadership are aptly interpreted and offer strong role models for all citizens. Presidential successes are recorded for posterity, as are the pitfalls that should be guarded against in the future. This series also explains the domestic reasons and world backdrop for the expansion of the Executive Office of the President. The President of the United States is perhaps the most coveted position in the world and this series reveals the lives of all those successfully elected, how each performed as president, and how each is to be measured in history. The collective life stories of the presidents reveal the greatness that America represents in the world. Dr. Barbara Bennett Peterson First Men, America’s Presidents NOVA Series Editor Professor of History, Oregon State University (retired) Emeritus Professor University of Hawaii Former Adjunct Fellow East-West Center Professor of History, California State University San Bernardino, Palm Desert

AUTHOR’S PREFACE Modern times have carried hyperbole to a high point in American life. The language arts especially have been affected by such forces as advertising and political rhetoric. Where once ―very good‖ was a top-of-the-line descriptive term, nowadays nothing less than ―excellent‖ or ―superior‖ or ―distinguished‖ will suffice to evaluate a product or performance. Unfortunately, a perfectly serviceable word like ―competent‖ is easily lost in the semantic shuffle. To describe a person as competent was once thought to be highly complimentary. It meant that the person was up to the task at hand, no matter how great. It implied that, even if the job required exalted talents, the person had those necessary prerequisites. It carried with it a host of implied attributes like strength, purpose, acuity, and ability. It was at once a mundane term, since a person was simply expected to be able to carry out his or her appointed duties; at the same time, it could be considered a profound acknowledgement of a person‘s fitness. For all of his adult life, and even somewhat earlier, William Howard Taft was a competent individual. He achieved a high ranking at every level of academic studies, from grammar school through college and law school. He established a statewide reputation as a lawyer, and was a serious contender for judiciary posts before he was thirty. When he did become a judge, there was always talk of higher positions, and he quickly rose from the local courts to a federal judicial post. National recognition soon followed. An important international diplomatic posting led to talk of the United States Supreme Court, which he turned down twice. He finally accepted a post in the Roosevelt cabinet, where he was almost overnight considered one of its acknowledged leaders. Roosevelt chose him for some of the most sensitive diplomatic tasks related to the Western Hemisphere, in spite of his position as Secretary of War, not State. When someone had to negotiate a difficult

xviii

Richard G. Frederick

situation with the Vatican, with which the United States had no formal diplomatic relations, Taft was chosen over the career diplomats. He was twice the choice of the Republican party for President. After teaching at one of the nation‘s leading law schools, he ascended to the Supreme Court, where he served as Chief Justice for the better part of a decade. The reason for all of his success was obvious – whatever the mission, Taft carried it out in a workmanlike fashion. Throughout his rise to prominence, which would carry him to the Presidency as Roosevelt‘s chosen successor, people seldom characterized Taft as brilliant. As a young man, he was never a prodigy or an enfant terrible. He did not set remarkable legal precedents on the bench. He was known as a diligent student of whatever position he found himself in, and he always had a reputation for hard work. But he was more than a mere plodder. He had definite skills and he made the most of them in order to accomplish what he set out to do or what he was sent to do. In a word, he was competent. In the light of this, it is somewhat disconcerting to consider Taft‘s reputation as President. His service is almost negated in any consideration of the so-called Progressive Era. He is the hiccough between Roosevelt and Wilson, the giants of Progressive reform. Most textbooks give him a few scant paragraphs, which mainly focus on his difficulties rather than his accomplishments. The library shelves bear testimony to Taft‘s neglect as well. There are multi-volume biographies of Wilson and Roosevelt, written after World War II. Every decade seems to bring an important volume on these men, many of them big sellers in the non-fiction line. By way of contrast, the ―standard‖ biography of Taft remains a work published in 1939. In the often chancy area of historiography, Taft is one of the losers. Taft‘s reputation among professional historians is not terrible, however. In ratings of Presidents, which have been occurring since the late 1940s, he has consistently been in the middle of the pack. Not quite ―near great‖ or ―above average‖ (the nomenclature changes, depending on the poll), he is the epitome of ―average.‖1 Considering the fact that he was a one-term President, and that his party was split badly during his term, this is a fair estimate. But to anyone who is not a historian, Taft appears inept. When he is remembered at all, it is because he was fat and did not fit in the White House bathtub. Taft was a man of intellect, if not exactly an intellectual. His personal and political philosophies were well-developed and shaped by his judicial thinking. 1 In Greatness in the White House: Rating the Presidents (2d.ed., University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994), Robert K. Murray and Tim H. Blessing conveniently list the rankings of four other polls along with their own on pp. 16-17.

Preface

xix

He considered problems, not as an advocate of one position or the other, but from the viewpoint of balancing ideas and achieving results that were fair and just. He stressed the rational rather than the emotional in his thinking, which may explain his disdain for politics and elections, which were often based on emotional appeals. In the battles between standpat Republicans and advanced progressives in the early 20th Century, he was often mired in the middle ground. Convinced in 1908 that he and Theodore Roosevelt were truly reformers, but not radicals, he was caught unawares by Roosevelt‘s changing position in 1910 and later. As the reformers demanded more radical change, Roosevelt moved along with them, while Taft remained stuck in the moderate reformism Roosevelt had espoused while he was President.2 Even in this somewhat untenable position, Taft performed with competence and demonstrated the ability to lead. He accomplished many of the reforms that he sought to continue moving the nation in the direction of moderate progress begun under Roosevelt. He continued to fight against corporate greed in his antitrust actions. He made changes in the Executive branch in terms of rational budgeting and efficiency that provided models for later 20th Century administrations. Following his Presidency, he retained leadership positions both in an academic setting and in the peace organization which he helped found. He was much sought after as a speaker, and his opinions were widely respected. Ultimately, he achieved what he certainly regarded as the pinnacle of success with his appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. William Howard Taft was a fat man, but hardly stereotypical of the happygo-lucky, somewhat befogged and bumbling fatty that is featured in caricatures. He commanded respect because he threw himself with asperity into the task at hand and generally achieved what he set out to do. The respect he engendered was reflected by the fact that, outside of the Supreme Court and one earlier judicial appointment, he was offered a succession of ever more important jobs without his awareness that he was even being considered for them. From Solicitor General to Governor General to Secretary of War, Taft‘s career path ascended because of the favorable impression he made on a series of Presidents. When he became Chief Justice, he inherited a Court that was often split in its judicial philosophy. Through the force of his personality, he molded a Court that was most often unanimous in opinion and, even when 2 This view of Taft is articulated well in Stanley Solvick‘s ―The Conservative as Progressive: William Howard Taft and the Politics of the Square Deal,‖ Northwest Ohio Quarterly 39 (Summer 1967): 38-48. A similar characterization also informs the later work of Donald F. Anderson and Lewis L. Gould.

xx

Richard G. Frederick

split, was not a battleground for petty infighting, as has been the case in other times. Historians have criticized the tenor of some of the Court‘s decisions, but never with Taft‘s ability to lead the Court during the 1920s. The historical judgment of any person includes fallibility. No one is correct 100% of the time. But even when Taft was wrong, or demonstrated errant thinking, it came about as a result of his own measured consideration of the facts. His family background, education, and early experience all contributed to making him very much his own man. His contemporaries understood this and respected him for it. His ability to act on his convictions marked him as an individual competent to deal with the complicated problems and situations that arise in public life.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Any scholarly work owes a great deal to the excellent research libraries that provide the materials of scholarship and to the librarians who interpret them. I have always been fortunate in this regard. My ―home‖ library, the Hanley Library at the University of Pittsburgh at Bradford, is staffed with informed, helpful, and cheerful souls under the direction of Trisha Morris. It is a fine place to work, and even to reside, as I found in my academic year in residence there while my office building was undergoing renovation. I also spent considerable time in the Pattee-Paterno Library at the Pennsylvania State University, where I spent weeks at a time during the summers digging through microfilm and other sources. The staff‘s helpfulness and extension of privileges to a non-resident alumnus is greatly appreciated. Anyone who has visited the Manuscripts Division in the Madison Building at the Library of Congress is familiar with the staff‘s unfailing professionalism and courtesy. My several visits there were always pleasant; even when we had to leave the building and gather across the street during a bomb scare, the conversations with other scholars were scintillating. (No bomb was found, incidentally.) Travel to collections requires some financial support, of course, and I have been fortunate over the years in securing funding from the Faculty Development Fund at the University of Pittsburgh at Bradford. I was also assisted by a monetary award from the Pitt-Bradford Alumni Association when they presented me with their Teaching Excellence Award. Several people also contributed in a variety of ways to my research efforts. Ray Lee and Roberta Goldberg were kind enough to provide a friendly place to stay in their home in Silver Spring, Maryland during my trips to Washington. For many weeks, I inhabited the basement and shared the food and friendship of Scott and Dannette Owens in State College, Pennsylvania. In Bradford, Dr. Sam Fohr provided years of encouragement in his position as

xxii

Richard G. Frederick

Chairman of the Social and Behavioral Sciences and as a friend. Finally, my wife Jan has endured nearly 40 years of ―family vacations‖ as research trips and my disappearances into the study to work on whatever project has been at hand. As always, this is for her.

Chapter 1

GROWING UP TAFT There is a splendid irony in the first words ever written about the man who would grow up to become the largest President of the United States. ―The baby is fat and healthy,‖ his father wrote to a relative six days after the birth day. While his mother was ―getting along astonishingly well,‖ she was constantly challenged by ―the clamorous appetite of the boy.‖ Nevertheless, after the death of the couple‘s first-born the previous year, the new father felt that ―we have great cause to be thankful to a kind Providence who has so kindly ordered events so important to us.‖1 The baby was William Howard Taft, born at home on a Tuesday, September 15, 1857. Home was a comfortable house on Auburn Avenue in the Mount Auburn section of Cincinnati where his parents, Alphonso and Louisa Torrey Taft, resided. Both traced their ancestry back to England, through progenitors who arrived in the American colonies in the first half of the 17th Century.2 They were not quite Mayflower pioneers, but they were not far behind. Born in 1810, Alphonso represented the third generation of Tafts to occupy a 100-acre farm sometimes called ―Taft‘s Hill‖ in Windham County, Vermont. His father, Peter Rawson Taft, had assumed control of the farm upon the death of his father in 1808, and promptly extended the family property by marrying the girl next door, Sylvia Howard. In addition to farming, Peter also 1 Alphonso Taft to Increase Tarbox, September 21, 1857. Unless otherwise indicated, correspondence is found in the William Howard Taft Papers, Manuscripts Division Library of Congress. 2 Lewis Alexander Leonard, Life of Alphonso Taft (New York: Hawke Publishing Co., 1920) is adequate for Alphonso, and includes a lengthy appendix detailing Taft genealogy. Ishbel Ross, An American Family: The Tafts, 1678-1964 (Cleveland: World Publishing Company, 1964), chaps. i-ii introduces the Tafts and the Torreys.

2

Richard G. Frederick

taught school for a spell and held several county posts in his lifetime, including Justice of the Peace. Perhaps inspired by his father‘s example, Alphonso determined to seek a career outside of farming. After excelling at a local academy, he taught school and worked on farms to earn money to attend college. He entered Yale University in 1829, beginning an enduring Taft-Yale relationship. Alphonso Taft achieved great success at Yale, establishing the high standard that his sons would emulate. He graduated third in his class of 94 and earned Phi Beta Kappa honors. He was characterized by a classmate as ―A man of high principle, rugged honesty and sterling integrity,‖ traits that would apply to his entire life.3 He found social acceptance at Yale as well, as a founding member of the Skull and Bones society. After two years of teaching in Ellington, Connecticut, Alphonso decided on his true vocation: he would study law and make a career in the West. He returned to Yale as a law student and a tutor. In 1838 he graduated and headed west. Although Taft considered making his residence in big cities like New York and Pittsburgh or smaller towns in Ohio, including Zanesville and Columbus, he was especially drawn to Cincinnati. It was a good choice. Already a booming town, its location on the Ohio River would make it the leading commercial center of the region over the next few decades. Steamboat trade up and down the river and the emerging railroad network would build the city into the infamous ―Porkopolis‖ of America, which would grow to the fifth largest city in the nation by 1850, and the leading inland port. Hogs may have led the way, but a rich trade followed in other commodities such as beer, liquor, soap, candles, and furniture. The commercial life in the bustling port presented many financial opportunities to a young lawyer, to be sure, but the town offered other attractions, some of which Alphonso Taft was instrumental in developing. According to one Queen City historian, Cincinnati in the antebellum period had ―the most vibrant, the most sophisticated, and the most variegated cultural and intellectual life‖ of any community west of the Alleghenies. ―Pork production paved the way for Shakespeare,‖ he observed.4 New Englanders like Daniel Drake, a physician and civic booster, and Nicholas Longworth, whose fortune was built in real estate, promoted the building of museums, libraries, theaters, and an opera house. When the first astronomical observatory in the United States opened there, former President John Quincy 3 Leonard, Life of Alphonso Taft, p. 29. 4 Louis Leonard Tucker, ―Cincinnati: Athens of the West, 1830-1861,‖ Ohio History 75 (Winter 1966): 10-25 (quotes on pp. 15, 17).

Growing Up Taft

3

Adams, who had lobbied unsuccessfully as President for such institutions, spoke at the dedication. Other initial settlers began clubs and debate groups focusing on the arts. One such group was the New England Society, of which Alphonso Taft was an early member. Nicholas Longworth promoted horticulture in the region, particularly the cultivation of Catawba grapes for wine. In the peak years before the Civil War, some 150,000 bottles were produced. Contemporaries found the wine to be of high quality. William Wadsworth Longfellow even found himself moved to write a poem about it. While the notion of a poet inspired by wine to write may not be unique, Longfellow‘s poem was about the wine itself, and the grapes which grew ―by the beautiful river‖: CATAWBA WINE ―There grows no vine By the haunted Rhine By Danube or Quadilquiver Nor on Island or Cape That bears such a grape As grows by the beautiful river. *

*

*

And this song of the wine This greeting of mine The winds and the birds shall deliver To the Queen of the West In her garlands dressed By the banks of the beautiful river.‘5 After a brief period of adjustment, Alphonso flourished in his new environment. He partnered with the established Nathaniel Wright, another Vermonter who preceded him to Cincinnati by about a decade. This would be the first of four law firms in Cincinnati in which Alphonso was a partner; the last would be with two oldest sons. Early on he was embroiled in some major 5 Clara Longworth de Chambrun, The Making of Nicholas Longworth: Annals of an American Family (New York: Ray Long & Richard R. Smith, 1933): pp. 32-33. Sadly, a strain of Phylloxera (plant lice) killed the vines around the time of the Civil War, and attempts at reintroduction failed.

4

Richard G. Frederick

legal cases which resulted in travel to Columbus for trials. His strong advocacy of railroad development led him to become a counsel for several lines, as well as an investor in railroad bonds and a member of the board of directors for more than one road. The success he began to enjoy was enriched by his changed domestic situation. Shortly after being admitted to the Ohio bar in 1839, he returned to his parents‘ farm in Vermont and began the serious courtship of 17-year-old Fanny Phelps, the second daughter of a prosperous local judge. After a twoyear engagement, the couple married in August of 1841, honeymooned in Niagara Falls, then settled into the first home that Alphonso purchased, at the corner of Fourth and Vine Streets. Over the next eleven years, Fanny would give birth to five children, but only two sons would survive: Charles Phelps, born in 1843 and Peter Rawson, born two years later. Alphonso‘s growing law practice was only one of his various interests in the period before the Civil War. An early adherent to the Whig party, and an especial admirer of Daniel Webster, he ran for political office in Cincinnati and was elected to the city council. In 1852, he attended the national Whig convention in Philadelphia, where he saw Webster lose the Presidential nomination to Winfield Scott. He also pushed for school reform. As a member of the Board of Education, he wrote an 1851 law that provided for instruction for both sexes in the city‘s two high schools. Fanny joined him and other community members in the early 1850s in establishing a ―house of refuge‖ to separate youthful criminal offenders from hardened adults in prison. Life in the Taft household was not idyllic, however, owing to Fanny‘s frail constitution. Even though Alphonso moved the family to a hillside above the city in 1851, partly as a health measure, it was too late for his wife‘s recovery. She passed away at the age of 29, on June 2, 1852. Alphonso wasted little time finding a mother for his two sons. He traveled to the east for this express purpose. While seeming like an unfeeling (for the recently deceased wife) and unromantic (for the presumptive new bride) course of action, this was precisely what a man of Taft‘s class and standing was expected to do. He had the great good fortune to visit a Yale friend, Samuel Dutton, in New Haven. There he met Dutton‘s niece by marriage, Louisa Maria Torrey, known to all as Louise. At the age of 26 in 1853, Louise teetered on the brink of lifelong spinsterhood, but the 42-year-old widower struck a spark and the two began a brief courtship. On December 26, 1853,

Growing Up Taft

5

they were married in the Torrey home in Millbury, Massachusetts, forty miles west of Boston.6 Louise Torrey‘s father Samuel was a successful merchant in Boston until his retirement at age 42, when he expected to die with what he supposed were heart and lung ailments. He then removed his family to Millbury where he miraculously lived to a hale and hearty 88. His wife, Susan Waters, was a woman of independent mind who, like her husband, was descended from colonial Boston families. She was determined that her daughters would receive an education and be able to make their own way in the world. The two oldest of the four, Delia and Louise, became practically inseparable. They studied together at Mount Holyoke College, then moved to New Haven to study privately and attend lectures at Yale. The two taught at an academy in Maine and later traveled together, visiting fashionable spots in New York State, including New York City. When Louise married, Delia, who remained single throughout her long life, became a sort of adjunct of the Taft family. She visited often and was a constant correspondent of her sister, her brother-inlaw, and their children. She clearly occupied the status of favorite aunt of the Taft boys. Louise and Alphonso honeymooned in New York City, then moved to the busy household on Mount Auburn that contained her new husband, two stepsons aged seven and ten, and her husband‘s parents, who had moved to Cincinnati at the time of Alphonso‘s first marriage. None of this seemed to bother Louise, who hoped for a large family; as she wrote her sister Delia, ―if my health is spared to me I intend to make it the business of my life for the next few years.‖7 Between February, 1855 and July, 1865, she gave birth to five children: Samuel, who died from whooping cough at 14 months, followed by William Howard, Henry Waters, Horace Dutton, and finally the girl all the Tafts and Torreys were long hoping for, Frances Louise. Alphonso and Louise both kept Delia well informed about Will‘s early development. Invariably, mention was made of what a fat and healthy baby he was. The only real anxiety during his infancy was when he suffered a minor illness at about the age when their first son had died. Louise explained that she was ―strongly reminded by the season of the year, and other circumstances of Sammy‘s sickness. I am always on the lookout for danger.‖8 Will‘s health remained excellent, though. The only significant scare involving Louise‘s 6 An engaging sketch of Louisa Torrey Taft is found in chap. vii of Doris Faber, The Mothers of American Presidents (New York: New American Library, 1968). 7 Louise Taft to Delia Torrey, December 13, 1858. 8 Louise Taft to Delia Torrey, April 14, 1858.

6

Richard G. Frederick

oldest son came at age eight, when he was dragged down Mount Auburn in a carriage accident and suffered a slight skull fracture and several severe cuts to his head. By all accounts, Will‘s childhood in Cincinnati was not marked by great and extraordinary happenings. His playmates were his younger brothers, Henry (whom everyone called Harry) and Horace and the other children of his affluent neighborhood. They ran in the sparsely-settled fields behind their house, played ball, went swimming, and sometimes fought with the kids from nearby neighborhoods. The Taft boys visited relatives in New England in the summertime and attended school during the school year. As they grew older, they learned in various ways about socializing, which included instruction in dancing, an activity in which Will always excelled in spite of his size. In fact, Will seemed to excel in whatever he pursued. Growing up, he was wellrounded and well-liked. With two parents who had an avowed interest in education, and who were well educated themselves, it was a foregone conclusion that the Taft children would be great strivers in the classroom. The career path to be followed also seemed preordained. All five boys went to Yale and continued on with the study of law. In Cincinnati, all attended the public elementary school on Mount Auburn. When Will was twelve, his father wrote with pride to Delia Torrey about the medals he and Horace had won for their recent academic success. ―Willie took the first in his class handsomely,‖ he wrote, and ―is certainly distinguishing himself for scholarship and intelligence. I am delighted with his writing, and his expression of his thoughts.‖9 Will, or ―Lub,‖ as he was known to his youthful contemporaries, continued to stand out during his years at Woodward High School, a public institution with demanding standards, located about a mile downtown from the Taft home. After four years of college preparatory courses, he stood second in his graduating class. He was prepared for the next step, already taken by Charles and Peter, both now back in Cincinnati practicing law. He was ready to become a Yale man. There is unanimity of opinion among Taft‘s contemporaries and later biographers that he possessed an outstanding mind but was not brilliant. Unlike his brother Peter, who had recorded the highest grades ever at Yale and graduated in 1867 at the top of his class with numerous prizes and awards, Will was more of a plodder. He made up for his lack of brilliance with diligence, a virtue instilled early in all of Alphonso‘s children. In Will‘s case, 9 Alphonso Taft to Delia Torrey, December 24, 1869.

Growing Up Taft

7

it paid off. Of the 191 young men he entered college with in 1874, 132 graduated in June of 1878, and he stood second among them.10 Historian David Burton best characterized Taft as the young Yale entrant: ―what he took to Yale as a freshman in 1874 was a mastery of fact and a commitment to disciplined study, rather than a sense of an intellectual adventure on which he was about to embark.‖11 What he acquired at Yale was a traditional education, which focused on the classics with some attention given to modern problems in his Senior year. In his letters home, he did not dwell on intellectual challenges or regale his family with stories about the remarkable educators he met. He may have been influenced to some extent by William Graham Sumner, the great expositor of social Darwinism and laissezfaire capitalism, but Sumner was not yet the famous public figure he would become in the next decade. Will (known to his classmates as Bill, which was how he sometimes signed his letters) usually wrote home about more mundane matters. He described his daily routine to his mother shortly after his arrival, making it clear that he studied or attended recitations from 6:30 in the morning until ten or eleven in the evening. ―You expect great things of me but you mustn‘t be disappointed if I don‘t come up to your expectations,‖ he warned.12 After finishing five of six annual examinations at the end of his Sophomore year, Will professed himself ―very well satisfied with the way in which I got through.‖ He found the exams ―unusually long and sometimes hard,‖ and prophesied that some of his classmates would fall by the wayside. ―How glad I am that this grind is about to cease,‖ he concluded. He also included an itemized list of his expenses for the year, which totaled $400.50. He apologized for the excessive amount, but pointed out that it included furnishings for his room the following year.13 The college experience consisted of more than education in the classroom, of course, and Will Taft partook of some of the variety that life in New Haven had to offer. Although he did not participate on any athletic teams, he made a name for himself as a wrestler, and was invited to join the crew on the rowing team. In his last year, he was honored with an invitation to Skull and Bones. In spite of his concentration on his studies, he had time for friendships, and left a 10 Taft‘s years at Yale are discussed in Ross, An American Family, chap. vi and in Henry Pringle, The Life and Times of William Howard Taft: A Biography (2 Vols.; New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1939), chap. iii. 11 David H. Burton, The Learned Presidency: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson (Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1988), p. 91. 12 Quoted in Ross, An American Family, p. 61. 13 WHT to Alphonso Taft, June 18, 1876.

8

Richard G. Frederick

positive impression on his classmates. Years later, one of them wrote in his memoirs that Taft ―towered above us all as a moral force . . . and, consequently, was the most admired and respected man not only in my class but in all Yale.‖14 Taft had the opportunity to propound the views shaped by his education to the Yale community in his salutatorian‘s address in 1878. He chose as his topic ―The Professional and Political Prospects of the College Graduate,‖ and spoke on both the problems of modern life, especially in politics, and his unspecified hope that enlightened citizens such as those being trained in universities like Yale could effect a change for the better.15 That said, he returned to Cincinnati to assess his own prospects. These prospects were intertwined with family matters, the usual way of things in the closely-knit Taft clan. Alphonso had vaulted into national prominence while his son attended Yale. He had earlier helped organize the Republican party in Ohio, attended the national Republican nominating conventions in Philadelphia in 1856 and in Chicago as an alternate in 1860, and contributed to fund-raising efforts during the Civil War. In December of 1865, he accepted an interim appointment to the Superior Court in Cincinnati, a position to which he was elected in 1869. In 1875, he was the focus of a gubernatorial boom in Ohio, but refused the nomination at the state convention, partly because the Ohio party did not fully support the administration of Ulysses S. Grant, a Taft friend. As a result, when the post of Secretary of War opened early in 1876, Taft was named to the post. A few months later, he became Attorney General, which made him a key figure in the disputed election of 1876.16 Although out of office when the Grant administration ended in March of 1877, Alphonso was clearly a leading choice for some political appointment in a subsequent Republican administration. In the meantime, he returned to Cincinnati and resumed the practice of law with his old partner, Major Harlan P. Lloyd, and his sons, Charles and Peter. Even before Alphonso‘s return from Washington, however, Peter suffered a major breakdown. This was not the first sign of his mental and physical deterioration, which had begun shortly after he finished his brilliant Yale career. For years he had been plagued by severe headaches, eyestrain, and the inability to concentrate. But his 1876 episode marked the onset of a rapid 14 Herbert W. Brown, quoted in Pringle, Taft, I:35. 15 Ibid., I:44; Burton, Learned Presidency, p. 95. 16 Leonard, Life of Alphonso Taft, chap. xvii-xx. Joseph B. Foraker had a different perspective on Alphonso‘s failure to get the gubernatorial nomination. See his Notes of a Busy Life (2 Vols., Cincinnati: Stewart & Kidd, 1916), I:93.

Growing Up Taft

9

decline. He would partially recover and attempt to resume his practice from time to time, but ultimately his condition led to the breakup of his marriage, his confinement in a sanitarium, and his early death in 1889 at the age of 44. Charles would also withdraw from active practice at the end of the 1870s, but for a much different reason. In 1873 he married Annie Sinton, the only daughter of one of Cincinnati‘s wealthiest capitalists, David Sinton. Sinton‘s fortune was in iron, but after achieving financial success he began to diversify, investing heavily in areas like railroads and real estate. In 1879 Sinton and his son-in-law joined to purchase a controlling interest in the Cincinnati Times, which they consolidated the following year with another paper to form the Times-Star. Charles Taft would assume editorial responsibility, as well as join his father-in-law in other ventures, which led to his withdrawal from the law firm. As his sons had less to do with the law, Alphonso increasingly devoted his energies to other areas as well, particularly politics. After running unsuccessfully for Governor of Ohio in 1879, he later accepted an appointment as U.S. Minister to Austria-Hungary. There clearly was an opening for a Taft in the local legal ranks, and Will was expected to fill the gap. Education in the law was the first step. Taft could have trained at Yale, as his father had. Or he might have tracked his brother Charlie‘s wide-ranging path. After graduating from Yale in the Class of 1864, Charles had matriculated at Columbia, where he received a Bachelor of Laws degree, then returned to Yale for the M.A., followed by a doctorate of law at the University of Berlin, then study at the Sorbonne. Charles was without doubt the most educated Taft; he may have been one of the most educated lawyers of the 19th Century. But Will chose to make his own way. He returned to Cincinnati, perhaps to be with his family, perhaps because he missed his local friends and acquaintances, or maybe because it was the easiest course of action, a consideration which often guided Will‘s decisions during his young adult years. For whatever reason, he spent some time in the summer of 1878 studying in Alphonso‘s office, then began fall classes at the Cincinnati Law School. Taft‘s biographer Henry Pringle pointed out that the Cincinnati Law School opened its doors in 1833, when few others were in existence. By the 1870s, there were several sound members of the faculty, including Dean Rufus King. ―It was by no means a second-rate institution,‖ Pringle asserted. Will‘s brother Horace, who attended the school a few years after Will, commented on Pringle‘s statement: ―He was quite right. It was certainly as low as third class.‖ On the other hand, Champ Clark, a leader of the Democratic party in the early 20th Century, pointed out that he, Ohio Governor Judson Harmon, and

10

Richard G. Frederick

President Taft had all been graduates of the institution. It would appear that, if the school was not top-notch, it nevertheless did not seem to harm irreparably the prospects of its graduates.17 The law school classes and preparation did not require all of Will‘s time, giving him the opportunity to seek outside employment to assist him in funding his education. He became the courtroom reporter for the Cincinnati Commercial, edited by one of the giants of Western journalism, Murat Halstead. The combination of law school classes and practical experience in the courts with the newspaper would stand him in good stead when he began his practice. He not only became conversant with legal issues, but he also made the acquaintance of leading members of the legal profession in the city, including judges as well as lawyers. One incident which occurred during this time indicated how Will could act out of character when there was a challenge to his family. The editor of a Cincinnati weekly paper, one Lester Rose, maligned Alphonso in print. After consulting his brother Charlie, who accompanied him in the escapade, Will set out to find the editor and remonstrate. The newspaper account in the Taftfriendly Cincinnati Commercial made it clear that Rose was ―a bruiser of considerable physical courage and great endurance,‖ but this did not deter the young legal student. When Taft and Rose met, Taft immediately began to swing, pounding Rose to the ground, where he continued the pummeling until he was pulled off by a bystander.18 The normally good-natured Will Taft responded strongly when family honor was at stake. Taft finished his studies at the law school in 1880, and passed the Ohio bar examination in May. He did not immediately enter private practice. He had become comfortable with his duties as a courtroom reporter for the newspaper and continued this job through the summer. Halstead offered him a solid salary to become a journalist full-time and abandon the practice of law. He may have given the suggestion some consideration, but in the end he would follow the Taft family profession, telling his friends that his work for the newspaper merely contributed to his legal training by allowing him to observe the courts in action, outside of the textbooks.19 In any event, a better opportunity came along, as was to be an emerging pattern in the life of William Howard Taft. 17 Pringle, Taft, I:49; Horace Dutton Taft, Memories and Opinions (New York: Macmillan Company, 1942), p. 49; Champ Clark, My Quarter Century in Politics (2 Vols., New York: Harper & Brothers, 1929), I:442. 18 Quoted in Herbert S. Duffy, William Howard Taft (New York: Minton, Balch & Co., 1930), pp. 7-8. 19 Pringle, Taft, I:54.

Growing Up Taft

11

The catalyst in this instance was the Cincinnati Prosecuting Attorney, Miller Outcalt, a recently-elected official only a few years older than Taft. Outcalt charged that the former Cincinnati prosecutor had shown favoritism to a defense lawyer, Tom Campbell, in a case involving embezzlement of city funds. Outcalt aimed to clean up the office and asked Will Taft to serve as his assistant in the task. For Will, still vacillating about opening a private practice, this seemed a perfect opportunity to increase his knowledge of the law and courts. He resigned his position on the Commercial at the end of October of 1880 and went on the public payroll with a not-especially handsome annual salary of $1200. Taft later commented that the stipend was a major reason why the job ―was not one sought by distinguished lawyers.‖20 Taft served in the position for over a year, resigning in March of 1882 to accept another public post. This was an appointment from the President of the United States, no less. Chester A. Arthur named Taft Collector of Internal Revenue at the urging of Ohio Congressman Benjamin Butterworth, a close friend of the Taft family who began to make a regular habit of submitting Will‘s name for ever-higher positions. Almost from the first, Will disliked the job and he made it known. He wrote his mother in August, five months after assuming the post, about rumors circulating that he intended to resign. He would not do so immediately, he told Louise, but that was between him and the President.21 When he did resign, just before the end of the year, he was forced to retain the position for several months until his successor took office. Taft and a friend had visited Washington in July, and Congressman Butterworth took the young men to the White House to meet the President. Taft was much involved at the time with Congressional election problems in Ohio and discussed them with President Arthur. He seemed impressed with the President‘s advice, which was ―to let things drift along and settle themselves without interference on our parts.‖22 Up to this point, Taft‘s career seemed to resemble Arthur‘s remark. He had drifted into and out of the newspaper job and two political posts without much apparent benefit to his career. His father relentlessly badgered him about setting up a practice, but Will seemed much more interested in the social whirl all about him. During ―opera festival week‖ in February of 1883, he bragged to his mother that he had seen four performances with four different girls and planned to attend at least two more. He addressed Alphonos‘s concerns with levity: ―I see Father shake his head 20 WHT to William Allen White, February 26, 1908, William Allen White Papers, Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress, Series C, Box 2. 21 WHT to Louise Taft, August 28, 1882. 22 WHT to Alphonso Taft, July 9, 1882.

12

Richard G. Frederick

when he reads this list and hear him say that a thorough knowledge of the law is not attained in that way.‖ But, he assured his parents, they had little to fear about him dissipating his talents, since this was his ―farewell to the social world.‖23 Will Taft was already engaged in a private law practice. Although he still held the Collector‘s post until March of 1883, Will began a partnership with his father‘s former partner, Major Harlan P. Lloyd, in January. Lloyd‘s experience and savvy and the Taft name combined to make the venture a success. ―The business is coming in well,‖ Will wrote only a few days after the office opened. He realized that his prospects were bright, but he also had some sobering thoughts about his lack of experience. He admitted that he finally realized that ―hard work and much of it will be necessary before I shall be at home with the lawyers who have been at the bar a long time.‖24 Losing his first case before a jury did not bolster his confidence, though he professed to be not overly discouraged. ―Defeats must come and perhaps as well at first as last,‖ he wrote about the result, an $800 settlement against his newspaper client in a libel case.25 He later worried about a dearth of clients. His father wrote him suggesting that he ―limit very considerably your social enjoyments and stir round briskly in the way of getting business.‖26 A few weeks later, Alphonso wrote in a less censuring and more philosophical tone about the profession his son had chosen: ―The law business is very much like the teaching of scripture, where it is said, ‗cast your bread upon the waters and it will return after many days‘. It requires some considerable time before the ‗returning‘ process begins.‖27 One of the reasons for Will‘s concern over lack of business was his larger than usual outlay of money during 1883. He traveled abroad for the first time that summer, accompanied by an old friend from his youth on Mount Auburn, Rufus (Ruf) Smith, now also practicing law in Cincinnati. This was no quick trip abroad. Will arrived in Europe in early July and left at the end of September. In the middle of the trip, he spent about three weeks with his parents in Vienna. He didn‘t miss much in western Europe, with trips around England followed by Brussels, Berlin, Dresden, then the Vienna sojourn in early August, followed by several Italian cities, a walking trip through Switzerland, then back to Germany for Munich, Heidelberg, and Frankfort, a trip down the Rhine to Cologne, then Paris, London, and Liverpool for the ship 23 WHT to Louise Taft, February 2, 1883. 24 WHT to Alphonso Taft, January 22, 1883. 25 WHT to Alphonso Taft, April 22, 1883. 26 Alphonso Taft to WHT, November 4, 1883. 27 Alphonso Taft to WHT, December 1, 1883.

Growing Up Taft

13

home. Little wonder that he described himself as ―teetotally busted‖ by the end of the year.28 The trip was certainly worth whatever it cost to Will. It was the first of several trips he would make to Europe, and one which allowed him the leisure to explore the Continent more thoroughly than his subsequent excursions there. Furthermore, he had been looking forward to visiting his parents and to seeing how they were situated in Vienna. Just before leaving for home, he wrote a note of thanks to his mother for the consideration shown to him by both his parents. He wrote sincerely: ―You and Father might easily think that I do not appreciate how much I owe you and how kind you have been because I do not say, but I hope it goes without saying. It is hard to say. Words are stiff and I can not exactly express it.‖29 In spite of his concerns about money, Will was working steadily by the end of the year. He went to Alabama and Tennessee to take depositions in a case, his first trip further south than Louisville. When Will was out of town, Major Lloyd wrote to Alphonso and gave his assessment of the young man. ―Will is working well and seems very happy,‖ he wrote. ―I wish he wd. select a good wife.‖30 As Major Lloyd may have been aware, there was a candidate on the horizon. Ever since moving back to Cincinnati, Will had thrown himself into a rich social life with other young people of his station, most of them from families with business or neighborhood ties to the Tafts. Dances, dinners, musical events, amateur theatricals, sledding, and parties in the country were all entertainments in which members of the group participated. Will Taft and his younger brother Horace became regulars, along with the Herron sisters, Helen and Maria. Before long, a group of four or five young men and a like number of young ladies started meeting at the Herrons on Saturday nights to discuss a preselected topic they had prepared for during the week. ―The ladies call it a ‗salon‘,‖ Will reported to his mother.31 Taft had first asked Helen Herron out in February 1880, a fact which surprised her since, as she confided to her diary, she hardly knew him at the time.32 More than five years later, he proposed marriage, a proposal she 28 WHT to Louise Taft, December 25, 1883; Will‘s itinerary was included in a letter to his father on April 22, 1883. 29 WHT to Louise Taft, September 24, 1883. 30 H. P. Lloyd to Alphonso Taft, December 13, 1883. 31 WHT to Louise Taft, December 15, 1883. For a full-length biography of Helen Herron Taft, see Carl Sferrazza Anthony, Nellie Taft: The Unconventional First Lady of the Ragtime Era (New York: William Morrow, 2005). 32 Helen Herron Taft‘s Diaries are found in the Taft Papers, Series 11.

14

Richard G. Frederick

accepted only after some weeks of nay-saying, which had the desired effect of increasing his ardor. During most of those five years, Will and Nellie, as she was known to her family and friends from a young age, moved in the same social circle. They were often together at social gatherings, though not always in the exclusive company of one another. Some of Taft‘s letters were so enthusiastic about the good looks of Nellie‘s younger sister, Maria, that one might get the impression that she was his initial choice. By 1884, however, he seemed to have settled on Nellie and began to court her exclusively. Nellie‘s father, John Williamson Herron, was a prominent lawyer who had once been a law partner of Rutherford B. Hayes. This led to one of Nellie‘s experiences as a young girl. When she was 17, she was a guest of the Hayes family in the White House for a week. Nellie‘s mother, Harriet Collins, was raised in upstate New York, where her father was a United States Congressman. A woman noted for her beauty, she married her brother‘s law partner. Eleven children followed, of whom eight survived to become adults. Nellie was the fourth. By all accounts, John Herron‘s high standing at the Ohio bar would have brought him a judiciary post, but the expense of raising eight children necessitated his remaining in his law practice. At age eighteen in 1879, Nellie found herself at odds with her position in life, as she related in her diary. She loved music, but her music lessons finished when school ended, and she saw no way to further pursue this interest. She could find little to do at home, since ―Mama is unwilling to trust anything out of her hands.‖ She had little interest in church affairs (the Herrons were Presbyterian), but figured in time she would ―turn over a new leaf in that respect.‖ She felt the prospect of marriage was slight, but hoped to find a way ―to become of actual use in the world.‖ Worst of all, she could not enjoy social affairs because of her nervousness. ―I reason and wonder and think the next time I will be composed, and the next time am so miserably ill at ease that it is all I can do to appear unembarrassed, to say nothing of attempting to appear at my best.‖ ―I am sick and tired of life,‖ she concluded at one point. ―I would rather be anyone else.‖ Four years later, Nellie had acquired a measure of the self-confidence that accompanies maturity. Against her family‘s wishes, she had begun teaching elementary school boys. This was not ―congenial work,‖ she admitted, but ―the only thing which so far I have found to do.‖ ―The usual puttering which an unmarried woman calls work would never satisfy me,‖ she wrote, in describing her basic need to find an independent existence, since she still did not envision matrimony as a possibility. She remained unsure of her course in life, but she knew that she was principled and desirous of making her own way

Growing Up Taft

15

in the world. She also understood that her principles and striving for independence were uncommon. ―Why should I take life so hard—other people seem to get through all right without inconvenient ideas.‖33 Her ideas—and her expression of them in the salon and elsewhere— seemed to be a major attraction for Will Taft. He assiduously attended salon meetings. In the one extant picture of the group, he is seated at the center, staring in the obviously posed manner of photographs of the day at the rather plain woman to his left. Nellie is seated to his right, leaning slightly into his arm. By comparison with everyone else in the photograph, she looks animated.34 After she accepted Taft‘s marriage proposal in 1885, he wrote letters nearly every day reassuring her about his devotion to her. In one he explained the qualities which attracted him to her: ―My love for you grew out of a friendship, intimate and of long standing. That friendship of course was founded on a respect and admiration for your high character, your sweet womanly qualities and your intellectual superiority over any woman I know and for that quality in you which is called sympathy 35 but I call it self-forgetting companionableness.‖

Coining unwieldy phrases to impress his fiancé was not Taft‘s only literary activity of the moment, of course, since he also maintained an extensive family correspondence about his bright prospects. He did not immediately inform family members of the engagement, however, and there was speculation among the brothers, the parents, and Aunt Delia. When he finally wrote his father, now U.S. Minister to Russia in St. Petersburg, he extolled Nellie‘s virtues. Knowing what would strike a chord with the eminently-practical Alphonso, he wrote not only about Nellie‘s ―noble character and clear-cut intellect,‖ but also about her teaching experience for the past three years, which made her ―no expense at all to her father.‖36 Will asked both parents to write letters to Nellie, and each did begin a correspondence with her. Louise‘s first missive contained an interesting assessment of her son. After generously asserting her high regard for Nellie, Louise said of Will: ―He is not faultless, but he is generous to a fault—tender and true. His failings lean to virtues side and I believe you are just the one to 33 Diary entry for September 29, 1883. 34 Mrs. William Howard Taft, Recollections of Full Years (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1915), facing p. 12. 35 WHT to Helen Herron, June 17, 1885. 36 WHT to Alphonso Taft, July 12, 1885.

16

Richard G. Frederick

influence him in the right direction.‖37 Alphonso‘s feelings were more commonplace. He wrote of his belief that his son ―has a prospect of a happy life in your society,‖ and urged that the wedding date be advanced ahead of the proposed June of the following year.38 Exactly what Nellie‘s feelings were during this period is not abundantly clear. She had earlier expressed many of her private thoughts and anxieties to her diary on an irregular basis. She continued to do so, but decided at some later point in her life not to share these thoughts with posterity; the volume covering 1884 and 1885 clearly had a number of pages torn out. The only remnant of 1885 in the diary book is a set of ―rules‖ Nellie wrote down and dated September 22, 1885, well into the period of her engagement to Will Taft. These were written on a blank front page of her diary for 1883-1885, and seemed to spell out the formula to become the perfect companion and wife: ―=to examine the first of every month= I. Be very particular in toilette II. Break myself of any little peculiarity of habit that may prove annoying. III. Preserve always a certain amount of personal dignity and reserve. IV. Exert myself to be agreeable to him as the person most important to please. V. Cultivate an intelligent interest in everything in which he is interested. VI. Above all never permit him in anything to have reason to look down upon me.I consider essential with a person of his character to keep his admiration and respect. VII. With people with whom you live so intimately I believe it is better to be scrupulously truthful about the smallest maters.‖39 In the summer of 1885, Nellie‘s mother took the family back to New York, near where she grew up in the Adirondacks. Will remained in Cincinnati to work and save money. He wrote daily letters, some with plaintive remarks about the paucity of letters he received in return. Finally, at the end of July, in response to reports about the lack of good food where the Herrons were lodging, he packed a steamer trunk full of fancy groceries and personally

37 Louise Taft to Helen Herron, June 15, 1885. 38 Alphonso Taft to Nelly (sic) Herron, July 29, 1885. 39 Helen Herron Diary for 1883-1885, vol. 16.

Growing Up Taft

17

delivered them to the Adirondacks. The couple spent a blissful two weeks taking long walks and rowing on the nearby lake.40 The marriage took place as originally planned, on June 19, 1886. The ceremony was held in the Herron house, with Will‘s brother Horace serving as his best man. Nellie was attended by her sister, Maria, and Will‘s sister, Fanny, who happened to be a schoolmate and close friend of Maria Herron. Will‘s parents had returned from St. Petersburg the previous year, so the whole Taft clan was assembled for the event. Following the wedding, the newlyweds spent a night in New York, then went on to Seabright, New Jersey to spend the next four days in a room overlooking the sea. ―For four days from Monday until Friday our eyes closed in slumber and happiness to the music of the wash and wave of the deep sounding sea,‖ was the entry recorded in the couple‘s joint diary of the honeymoon.41 Following the pleasures of Seabrook, the couple sailed to Europe. Louise seems to have been the instigator of the notion of a European honeymoon a year earlier, when she suggested to Will that Nellie should have a trip to Europe. While it might appear to be a ―wild‖ or ―revolutionary‖ idea, she told her son, it might be some years before they could afford to travel to Europe again. On a honeymoon trip, they could buy linens and other articles to furnish their house in Cincinnati.42 The last week of June, 1886 found the newlyweds on the Inman Line‘s City of Chester on their way to England. For a little over two months, they would tour England with a side trip to France for a clothesbuying excursion for Nellie. Entries in the couple‘s honeymoon diary suggest that they were snooty about the company they kept. In order to travel frugally, they chose one of the cheaper lines to make the crossing, then found that their fellow passengers were lacking in social standing. ―The passengers on the City of Chester were not at all an attractive set,‖ Will wrote. ―There were two or three families that made themselves especially prominent who were exceedingly coarse and anything but desirable people to cultivate acquaintances with.‖ Fortunately, there were also some Cincinnatians aboard to make the trip a pleasant experience.43 By September the Tafts were ready to return home to occupy a newly-built home on a piece of property on McMillan Street in Walnut Hills that Nellie‘s father had deeded to them as a wedding present.

40 Mrs. WHT, Recollections of Full Years, pp. 14-15. 41 WHT and HHT, ―Honeymoon Diary, July-Sept., 1886.‖ 42 Louise Taft to WHT, July 5, 1885. 43 ―Honeymoon Diary, July-Sept., 1886.‖

18

Richard G. Frederick

By the end of 1886, Will Taft was a well-established Cincinnati lawyer and family man. He was a Yale man, a distinguished graduate of the local law school, and a man with family ties on his and his wife‘s side to leading legal and political figures. He was a man with formidable connections. But he also had achieved a certain standing in his own right. As a result of his involvement in a local cause celebre and in Ohio legal circles outside the city in 1884-1885, he had established a statewide reputation for himself that was rare for a man of his limited experience. The famous ―Campbell case,‖ which finished just before his marriage, would serve as the stepping-stone for the next phase of his career.

Chapter 2

AT THE BAR AND THE BENCH The action which would solidify Will Taft's position at the Cincinnati bar began in December 1883 with a series of events in which he had no part. Just before Christmas, two young men robbed and killed their employer. One of the men, William Berner, was tried for murder in March 1884, but the jury returned a lesser verdict of manslaughter. His lawyer evidently swayed the jury by his impassioned defense and his assertions that Berner had been led into the crime by the other man and that the police had forced his confession. Berner‘s attorney was Tom Campbell, a lawyer of questionable ethics who had earlier been accused of jury tampering; while he was not convicted of any offense, he was widely regarded as corrupt. The local press helped rile the public over the Berner case, with public opinion convinced that Campbell had won over the jury with more than just his legal brilliance. Cincinnatians were so worked up over the verdict that a large public meeting was scheduled for the Music Hall on March 28, four days after the trial concluded. Will attended a salon meeting at the Herrons that night, where the Berner verdict was the sole topic of conversation, so he and his friends were not present at the public gathering. The Music Hall meeting turned ugly, with demands for lynching Berner. A mob soon gathered and assaulted the local jail for that purpose. They were repelled by a combination of police and state militia. The mob reformed the next night; unable to mount a successful assault on the jail, they turned to the nearby Hamilton County courthouse,

20

Richard G. Frederick

which was set ablaze. The casualty toll in three days of rioting was 54 dead and 200 wounded.1 The courthouse walls were left standing, but much of the interior was destroyed. A few of the deed books were lost, but the great majority were saved. The greatest loss was the law library, with an estimated worth of $300,000, which was entirely destroyed by the blaze. Peter Taft made the observation that the courthouse, "bereft of its roof, and with the sun shining in on its massive walls, rivals, in some respects, some of the ancient ruins at Rome." Peter himself had nearly been a casualty of the riots. Separated from his wife, he was living in an apartment downtown just opposite the courthouse. As he sat on his bed, a rifle bullet shattered a window and lodged in the headboard of the bed. He abandoned his rooms for a hotel in a safer district.2 Will wrote to his father on March 24, after the verdict was announced but before the civil disturbance began that evening. He decried the manslaughter verdict, opining that "the jury was unduly influenced by some of the methods which Campbell knows so well how to employ." The situation was dangerous, with threats of lynching, but Will found the bright spot: "I never knew a time when the eye of the public was turned with such an interested gaze upon the criminal procedure as now. It will be productive of great good in bringing about a much needed reformation of our code." Since Cincinnati was such a "law abiding community," he concluded that there would be no lynching attempt, but he added whimsically that "I could wink at it if it were to occur now when the provocation is so great."3 What followed were two losing efforts for Will. In the aftermath of the riots, the local bar association appointed a committee "to revise the criminal code of procedure so as to facilitate the trial process and the bringing of criminals to justice." The motion to do so was made by Taft and approved by the association; Taft was appointed as head of the five-man committee to carry through on the action. He characterized his new campaign as a "manifestation of the deepseated indignation of the people at the farcical administration of justice rendered so by the corrupt methods of Tom Campbell."4 For the next few weeks, Taft would work on changing the criminal codes of the state; he would end up by personally presenting the changes to the legislature in 1 Zane L. Miller, Boss Cox’s Cincinnati: Urban Politics in the Progressive Era (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), pp. 59-61; Mrs. WHT, Recollections of Full Years, pp. 1114. 2 Peter Taft to Alphonso Taft, May 11, 1884 and WHT to Alphonso Taft, March 31, 1884. 3 WHT to Alphonso Taft, March 24, 1884. 4 WHT to Alphonso Taft, March 31, 1884.

At the Bar and the Bench

21

Columbus, with little effect. He was blocked, he said, "by lawyers who, having appeared in behalf of murderers, were determined not to take a step to give the state a fair chance."5 The other result of the riots was Will's campaign against Tom Campbell, in which he was joined by other members of the Cincinnati legal establishment. He was a member of a ten-man committee, which also included Nellie's father, appointed to investigate charges against Campbell and to prepare a case for his disbarment. While he was courting Nellie prior to their engagement, he was working as junior counsel to prepare the charges. This involved travel to several states to gather evidence that Campbell had used unscrupulous methods in cases over the past few years. During this time, Campbell was indicted by a grand jury in Hamilton County, charged with attempted bribery of several jurors in the Berner case. "That the indictment against Campbell is a true charge I have no manner of doubt," Will wrote, but asserted that Campbell would probably break down the only witness to the crime. "It may not be possible to convict but the indictment is a grand good thing," he thought.6 Taft was quite the young crusader in the Campbell affair. The fact that his father had also had run-ins with Campbell in the past undoubtedly fired his enthusiasm for the fight, but he was quite aroused against the older lawyer in his own right. By his dishonest tactics, Taft asserted, "He has thrown the bar of Hamilton County into disrepute." Taft held Campbell almost solely responsible for the March riots and felt that "now is the time to strike that man down from the position of wealth and influence that he occupies by reason of crime, fraud, cunning and brass."7 When the charges against Campbell were dismissed due to lack of evidence, Taft transferred some of his venomous remarks to the lawyer who defended Campbell, Joseph B. Foraker. Foraker would become a major force in Ohio politics and play a large role in Will Taft's life as well. He was a Civil War veteran who became a lawyer, Superior Court Judge, Ohio Governor, U.S. Senator, and Presidential aspirant. In the Spring of 1884, after Foraker appeared for Campbell at his arraignment, Taft vowed that "I shall do every thing I can against Foraker in every political fight hereafter." He predictably found that "Judge Foraker conducted the defense in Campbell's case in a most shystering and ungentlemanly way." A year later, when Foraker ran for 5 WHT to Louise Taft, April 13, 1884. 6 WHT to Alphonso Taft, May 13, 1884. 7 WHT to Louise Taft, April 21, 1884.

22

Richard G. Frederick

Governor, Will described him as "a double faced Campbell man . . . He is a small man and the people will find it out before they are through with him."8 While the court case against Campbell fizzled out, Taft worked hard through 1884 for the disbarment proceedings. He told his father he was eschewing involvement in the presidential campaign in 1884, since ―If I can assist to get rid of Campbell, I think that I shall have accomplished a much greater good than by yelling myself hoarse for Blaine.‖9 In fact, Will did play an official role in the 1884 elections as "Chief Supervisor" in charge of monitoring election frauds. This did not work out particularly well, with later charges of incidents of fraudulent behavior that were described as ―not only open and notorious, but in some respects unprecedented, and, in a large measure, successful.‖ Taft was later forced to testify in a House of Representatives investigation of the matter, although he was not charged with any wrongdoing.10 Taft was clearly interested in serving the needs of the community during this time, as later in life, when he often shunned self-interest in his career choices. He clearly expressed this commitment in a letter he wrote Nellie in August of 1884, discussing two local, wealthy young men who were lazy and shiftless. "If all the wealthy were of their kind," he wrote, "I should become a communist." But this was not the case, he thought. "It is in the wealthy young men of this country that there will be found the means of elevating its political tone and infusing in its governing councils, more disinterested zeal."11 Taft was not yet wealthy and, unlike those he wrote about, he was forced to earn a living. But as a Taft and a Yale man, he surely associated with the elite class that he described. And he just as surely demonstrated a zeal for good government and honest politics during this period of his life. The Campbell disbarment proceedings began in the District Court in November, with Taft serving as junior counsel to E.W. Kittredge and William M. Ramsey. Taft's familiarity with all the particulars of the case served him well as the trial wound down in early January, since he was forced by Ramsey's illness to make the summation. According to contemporary accounts, he spoke eloquently for nearly four hours. Years later he

8 WHT to Helen Herron, July 10, 1885; WHT to Alphonso Taft, May 13 and June 16, 1884. 9 Ibid. 10 Foraker, Notes of a Busy Life, I:214-17 (quote on p. 215). Foraker was, of course, not a disinterested observer. 11 WHT to Helen Herron, August 18, 1884.

At the Bar and the Bench

23

remembered it as "an opportunity to make a reputation . . .I spoke three or four hours and won very considerable credit for that speech."12 Credit there may have been, and there is evidence that Taft owed at least one subsequent appointment to his visibility in the Campbell matter, but his cause was a losing one. Campbell defended himself ably against the charges brought by the committee. In the end, he may have skirted close to the edge of ethical boundaries, but he rightly pointed out that cleverness and the use of shrewd tactics were not against the law. When the court finally returned a ruling after nearly a month of deliberations, Campbell was found innocent of all but one minor charge, for which he was neither suspended nor fined.13 He left town shortly thereafter. Taft moved ahead in his career. Besides his partnership in Lloyd and Taft, he accepted an appointment from his old friend Rufus Smith as Assistant County Solicitor for Hamilton County. The position paid a salary of $2,500, took relatively little time, and did not interfere with his private practice. With marriage in the offing, Will was concerned about money, and the additional $208 a month was a needed supplement. In August, he filled Nellie in on his financial situation, including the information that his share of the business for the month paid him $666.66, a larger amount than normal, owing to the receipt of several substantial fees. He indicated that all the money was spent, with the largest expenditure of $200 for government bonds. He took the chance that Nellie might find this sort of information ―unromantic,‖ in order to inform her ―about what you are undertaking in agreeing to guide me through life.‖14 After returning from their honeymoon in September 1886, the Tafts settled into Cincinnati society. Since their new house was not yet finished, they moved in with the older Tafts until just before the end of the year. Alphonso‘s health had deteriorated during the St. Petersburg sojourn, but he was attempting to recover in his adopted city where he had built his reputation over the years, surrounded by his loving family. He even entered into a partnership with his younger son Horace, who had returned to Cincinnati and the Cincinnati Law School after his graduation from Yale. This partnership was short-lived, however, on account of Horace‘s unexpected decision, late in 1886, to abandon the practice of law for the field of education. His departure 12 WHT to William Allen White, February 26, 1908, White Papers, Series C, Box 2. 13 Pringle, Taft, I:88-91. 14 WHT to Nellie Herron, August 25, 1885. According to the ―Economic History Service‖ website, if Taft‘s $2,500 salary as prosecutor was added to an income of $8,000 from his law practice, the purchasing power of his $10,500 income in 1885 was equivalent to over $190,000 in 2003.

24

Richard G. Frederick

from Cincinnati, originally for Kansas City, was a great disappointment to Alphonso, but Horace would go on to found one of the great preparatory schools in the nation, the Taft School in Watertown, Connecticut.15

JUDGE TAFT Will‘s career took a sudden turn at about the same time as Horace‘s, although Will‘s would not involve leaving town. Judson Harmon, one of the three judges on the Superior Court of Cincinnati, resigned his position in order to return to private practice. The office was an elective post, but since Harmon intended to resign before the term ended, Governor Foraker would appoint the interim justice. Judge Harmon traveled to Columbus to discuss the appointment with the Governor, and was a strong advocate of Taft for the job. That, along with the Taft family‘s standing in Cincinnati and the notion that Will‘s appointment would benefit his own political standing, led Foraker to proffer the position to Will, although he offered it to at least one other man first -- Nellie‘s father, John Herron. Will was young for the job (29), and lacked the experience of many older men at the bar in his home town. The post was an important one; earlier Cincinnati Superior Court justices included Alphonso Taft and Governor Foraker. Will attributed the offer to the stature he gained in the Campbell case. Governor Foraker had his own explanation. He had first noticed Taft when he was a court reporter, and his duties brought him into then Judge Foraker‘s court. ―His bright face and agreeable manner at once attracted to him my favorable attention and excited for him a most friendly regard,‖ Foraker wrote. By the time of the appointment, he explained, ―I knew him well enough to know that he had a strong intellectual endowment, a keen, logical, analytical, legal mind, and that all the essential foundations for a good Judge had been well and securely laid.‖16 Whatever the explanation for Will‘s appointment to the Superior Court at such an early stage in his career, it is illustrative of a notable trend in his early professional life. Taft received a succession of appointments to increasingly more important positions with little or no effort on his part. This may have been due in part to his father‘s reputation, but more than that it was a measure 15 Taft, Memories and Opinions, passim. 16 Foraker, Notes of a Busy Life, I:150, 237.

At the Bar and the Bench

25

of Will Taft‘s own character. His large frame and easygoing personality made him well liked, but his intellectual capacity, perspicacity, and penchant for hard work brought him respect. In these early years as a lawyer and as a judge, Taft‘s peers were usually his seniors by a decade or more, but he was clearly their equal in both professional and social circles. He was also adequate to whatever tasks his jobs entailed. Many of those tasks on the Superior Court were mundane, although they brought him into constant contact with the leading lawyers of the area. Cases involving contracts and other business dealings were foremost, and usually found Will acting as a conservative interpreter of the law. A number of his rulings were appealed and he was normally upheld in the state Supreme Court. After a year, in March of 1888, he stood for election in his own right. In order to win, he needed the support of the local Republican machine boss, George Cox, whose control of Cincinnati politics had come under heavy criticism in the Cincinnati Times-Star, a paper largely owned and edited by Will‘s older brother Charles. Cox would support Taft‘s nomination in the Hamilton County convention and thus ensure his election. Foraker and Cox at that time were warm friends, and Cox was at the head of the Foraker machine in Hamilton County, Taft later wrote. ―Having appointed me, Foraker was anxious that the people should confirm his selection, and he, therefore, used all his influence with Cox to have me nominated.‖17 This political arrangement of the moment did not translate into influence on the part of the Cox machine in Superior Court affairs, however. Taft‘s biographer Henry Pringle, found that the judge was occasionally overruled by the higher courts in matters involving the municipal government. He observed that ―Taft had small respect for Cincinnati‘s machine; it is difficult to avoid suspicion that he strained the law to find against it.‖18 Taft‘s most famous and important case on the Superior Court did not involve the Cox machine, and his decision would be upheld on appeal. It was also the first of a number of cases Taft confronted in his judicial career that involved organized labor; these cases would be much discussed when he came to national prominence and was first widely mentioned as a presidential candidate. The Superior Court case had the ungainly title of Moores and Co. v. Bricklayers’ Union No. 1, W.H. Stephenson, P.H. McElroy et al., and came 17 Taft to William Allen White, March 31, 1908, White Papers, Series C, Box 2. 18 Pringle, Taft, I:100.

26

Richard G. Frederick

before Taft and his fellow justices in January 1890. It stemmed from a strike by the Bricklayers‘ Union against Parker Brothers, a local contracting company. When grievances between the two parties could not be settled, the Bricklayers declared they would not work for any companies dealing with Parker Brothers. Moores and Co., a supplier, sold lime to Parker Brothers in defiance of the Bricklayers, and a boycott of all contractors dealing with Moores followed. When the company‘s business declined as a result, the owners sued the union for damages and were awarded a settlement of $2,250. The union subsequently sued for a new trial in the Superior Court.19 Taft‘s decision acknowledged the right of the union to organize and act for the benefit of its members. He penned a few phrases which his supporters would later resurrect to demonstrate his sympathy with the interests of the working man. But, he argued in carefully worded passages, the workers‘ rights did not extend to a secondary boycott against a company such as Moores, which had done no direct damage to the workers. In a key passage, he wrote that ―on this common ground of common rights where every one is lawfully struggling for the mastery, and where losses suffered must be borne, there are losses willfully caused to one by another in the exercise of what otherwise would be a lawful right from simple motives of malice.‖20 He cited a number of obscure cases, including English ones, to bolster his argument. Throughout the opinion, his reasoning was as incisive as his prose was dull, and the point was clear. The secondary boycott, in which a union injured a third party, was a malicious act, and therefore illegal. There would be no new trial and Moores and Co. would receive their $2,250. In the course of rendering the judgment, Taft set a legal precedent, one to which he would adhere in future labor cases, and one which would cause him to be widely viewed as anti-labor in later years. Taft‘s concerns were wider-ranging by the beginning of the 1890s, however, for both personal and professional reasons. On the personal side, Will and Nellie (mainly the latter, from all accounts) managed Will‘s $6,000 annual salary judiciously enough to pay debts, entertain modestly, and furnish their new home. By the summer of 1888, they decided to undertake a return trip to Europe before beginning their family. During July and August, they traveled around the Continent, saw many of the sights they had missed on their honeymoon, and satisfied Nellie‘s love for music by attending operas and concerts in various cities. 19 Coverage of the case is in ibid., I:102-05 and Duffy, William Howard Taft, pp. 20-23. 20 Quoted in ibid., p. 22.

At the Bar and the Bench

27

Nellie kept a diary of the trip. Reading it in comparison to her earlier diaries reveals a mature woman who was comfortable and settled in her marriage, in contrast to the over-sensitive girl lacking in self-confidence in the pre-nuptial diaries. Her tone was cheerful and she joked about many situations they encountered on the trip, including her husband‘s behavior when she suffered an inflammation of her eye. ―I was obliged to spend a great deal of my time down in the Saloon, and Will was enabled to give a very exalted idea of his perfections as a husband to all the lady passengers, by reading aloud to me,‖ she wrote. ―I think however that he is more anxious to wander than he was two years ago. And if he can get me safely planted somewhere, is not averse to the society of the smoking room.‖21 By the following year, Taft was proud of his and Nellie‘s budgetary acumen. He borrowed a small amount to finish paying the mortgage on his house, which he expected to repay within a month. By that time, he told his father, ―we shall have expended some $8500 in house and furniture and taken two trips to Europe in little more than three years and freed ourselves from debt. I think this is doing pretty well.‖ He credited Nellie, who had taken the economic helm and ―saved us from wreckage on rocks of extravagance.‖22 Taft had a bigger reason for pride in 1889, though. On September 8, Nellie gave birth to a healthy eight-pound baby boy. Will kept his father informed as to the baby‘s progress. On the occasion of the baby‘s one-week anniversary, he indulged in a bit of proud paternal overstatement in reporting that, ―His grandmother Herron, his mother, the masses and I are agreed that he is developing remarkable qualities and is in every way a phenomenon.‖ 23 Will expressed a desire to name the boy after his father, but Nellie balked at Alphonso as a first name. At his mother‘s behest, the baby‘s name would be Robert Alphonso Taft.

SOLICITOR GENERAL The year 1889 also brought excitement in Taft‘s professional life. When a position opened on the United States Supreme Court, President Benjamin Harrison offered the post to a Cincinnati lawyer, who declined the nomination. Politicians in southern Ohio were convinced that the President meant to 21 Helen Herron Taft Diary, ―European Trip July-Aug. 1888.‖ 22 WHT to Alphonso Taft, July 9, 1889. 23 WHT to Alphonso Taft, September 10, 1889.

28

Richard G. Frederick

nominate a man from their region, and a few were convinced that Taft was the man. His former colleague on the Superior Court, Judge Hiram Peck, encouraged him. Taft wrote his father that he was somewhat skeptical of his chances, given his age and relative lack of experience, but ―it does not disturb my equanimity for I know the chance is only one in a million but still the chance is something at so great a prize.‖ 24 Two weeks later, in spite of assurances of support from Joseph B. Foraker, who was running for re-election as Governor and needed Taft‘s backing, Taft still felt he had no realistic chance. ―My chance of going to the Moon and of donning a silk gown at the hands of President Harrison are about equal,‖ he wrote. 25 Of course he was right. His youth and brevity of judicial experience both worked against the Supreme Court appointment. But the campaign in his behalf was not fruitless. The chorus of Ohioans singing Taft‘s praises evidently made an impression on President Harrison, who offered Taft the position of Solicitor General shortly after the first of the year. Here was a dilemma for the young jurist. Much has been written about Taft‘s dedication to the bench, in pursuit of the ultimate prize of the Supreme Court. Solicitor General was an important position, one which would showcase Taft‘s legal talents, as he served to counsel the Attorney General and argued government cases before the Supreme Court. But it would remove Taft from the judiciary, where he hoped to compile a record that would result in ever-higher appointments in the direction of the Supreme Court. Might not this appointment lead him away from that goal? As usual, in times of uncertainty about important decisions, he sought the counsel of his father. Alphonso and Louise were living in San Diego, near Will‘s sister Fanny, who had married one of Alphonso‘s doctors, William Edwards. Both parents weighed in with advice. Louise told Will that the news had greatly lifted Alphonso‘s spirits and both parents felt he was equal to the task. Alphonso advised not to hesitate in his acceptance of the offer he characterized as ―a great event in your career.‖ He was fairly effusive in describing the benefits of the job, including the opinion that it would make Will a ―splendid lawyer‖ and give him a chance to become ―a first class politician.‖ While the job was subordinate to the Attorney General in theory, Alphonso, a former Attorney General, assured Will that he in fact would be the head of the Department of Justice. 26 A few days later he wrote again to 24 WHT to Alphonso Taft, July 20 and August 10, 1889. 25 WHT to Alphonso Taft, August 24, 1889 26 Louisa Taft to WHT, February 3, 1890; Alphonso Taft to WHT, February 1, 1890

At the Bar and the Bench

29

reassure Will that the work would not be as arduous as he thought, since he could select cases he personally would pursue from a large number in the docket. He also added that family matters should not concern Will, since ―Nelly is too level headed to have serious apprehensions about going to Wash.‖ 27 Far from being apprehensive about the move, Nellie welcomed it with enthusiasm. Her life in Cincinnati was pleasant enough, but restricted. She had visited the White House as a young girl, twice toured Europe as a young woman, and wanted to see more of the world. She later wrote that the appointment was good for her husband, as it gave him ―an opportunity for exactly the kind of work I wished him to do; work in which his own initiative and originality would be exercised and developed.‖ She added, ―I looked forward with interest, moreover, to a few years in Washington.‖ 28 If his father‘s arguments did not sway Will to take the position, Nellie‘s surely did. Taft arrived alone to take up the new position. Nellie and Robert would come in a few weeks, after Will settled into his job and made living arrangements for the family. Given the assurances of his supporters about the grand importance of the position, he was dismayed to find that the Solicitor General‘s office consisted of a single room up three flights of stairs. The desk was cluttered with files of cases left from his predecessor, who died a month earlier. His stenographer was only a part-timer, who had to be summoned when needed from the chief clerk‘s office, where he served as telegrapher. Taft literally and figuratively rolled up his sleeves and went to work. Never the kind of person to shy away from a daunting task, he immersed himself in it. He also found a two-story brick home on Dupont Circle, which he arranged to rent for $100 a month. By the time the family was settled in, he was concerned about the expenses of the move, but described the house in pleasant terms. He was particularly happy with the large room on the second floor, where he installed the many law books he had been collecting over the years. This would serve as his study, where he would spend many evenings with work he had brought from the office. Nellie would often sit with him and read after Robert was in bed. 29 Taft initially felt overwhelmed by the circumstances of his new position. It was not just the quantity of work, he told his father. Everything worried him: his lack of experience in the Supreme Court, his unfamiliarity with the rules of 27 Alphonso Taft to WHT, February 3, 1890. 28 Mrs. WHT, Recollections of Full Years, p. 24; cf. Anthony, Nellie Taft, pp. 93-96. 29 Mrs. WHT, Recollections of Full Years, pp. 25-27; WHT to Hiram D. Peck, April 26, 1890.

30

Richard G. Frederick

practice in the court, the court‘s decisions, and federal statutes. He displayed his usual optimism, nonetheless. ―I suppose I can worry through it in some way,‖ he wrote. 30 He was initially disheartened by the justices‘ remarks in the first case he presented, feeling that negative statements were directed at his presentation of the case. His father gently chided him, writing that ―I have not supposed that all the judges will be disposed to let you have an entirely smooth road. You must expect criticism and puzzling questions.‖ In analyzing his own performance, Taft wrote that he found it ―quite embarrassing to change from the easy position of sitting on the bench to the very different one of standing on your legs before it, and . . . presenting one side of a case at Court.‖ But Taft always concluded on a hopeful note: ―the very fact that I find it difficult, and not particularly agreeable is evidence that the medicine is good for me.‖ 31 Taft, of course, adjusted to the work. In time, he would argue 27 cases before the Supreme Court, with positive results in the great majority of them. He had a good working relationship with the Attorney General, W.H.H. Miller, although Miller‘s ill health caused him to absent himself on several occasions, causing Taft to assume extra duties. He didn‘t care for this ―executive part‖ of his job, he told his friend Hiram Peck, because it was a burden without responsibility or power to act. His concerns about the overwhelming amount of work were allayed by June of 1890, when he found that departmental affairs were not pressing and could be regulated by being selective about cases to be argued. The following year, he even considered taking private cases to argue before the Supreme Court.32 The most interesting case in which Taft was involved as Solicitor General had international ramifications, involving a dispute between the United States and Great Britain. Shortly after purchasing Alaska from Russia in the late 1860s, the United States had outlawed seal hunting in the Bering Sea, well outside of what might have been considered U.S. territorial waters. This was done to curtail the practice of pelagic sealing (killing at sea), which was considered wasteful and potentially harmful to the great seal herds of Alaska.

30 WHT to Alphonso Taft, February 26, 1890 31 Alphonso Taft to WHT, May 1, 1890 and WHT to Paul Charlton, April 23, 1890 32 WHT to Hiram Peck, August 22, 1890; WHT to Edward P. Noyes, June 24, 1890 and to F. Bey Budeling, June 8, 1891.

At the Bar and the Bench

31

What followed was the seizure of ships by the United States in the Bering Sea and protests from various countries involved, particularly Great Britain.33 Taft‘s involvement stemmed from the seizure of a Canadian vessel, the W.P. Sayward, which was condemned and ordered to be sold by the Federal District Court of Alaska. The British government filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court to halt this action. Taft was perturbed that the British had taken this course while the matter was being resolved by diplomats. He and the Attorney General worked arduously on preparing the case in the short amount of time the court allotted them. They had a solid case based on several legal points, Taft thought, but he looked forward to the oral presentation with ―considerable trepidation,‖ since the case generated much interest in Washington.34 The Supreme Court ruled against the petitioners, upholding the argument made by Taft and the Attorney General that such action was inappropriate while diplomatic negotiations were in progress. Will did not have long to savor his success. He had been keeping in close touch with his father and mother in California and received regular reports about his father‘s declining health. In April of 1891, he was summoned to be with his father in his last days. Alphonso died on May 21, 1891. He had served as advisor and confidante for Will during his whole adult life and would be missed in the years ahead when important decisions arose. Will thought perhaps his father‘s influence went even further. In one of his almost-daily letters to Nellie a few days before Alphonso died, Will claimed that, although he was not superstitious, ―I have a kind of presentiment that Father has been a kind of guardian angel to me in that his wishes for my success have been so strong and intense as to bring it.‖ 35 By the time of his father‘s death, Will‘s next career move was already in the works. In March of 1891, Congress passed a law creating new federal judicial posts, one for each of the nine circuit courts in the federal system. The Sixth Circuit encompassed all of Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Michigan, but was headquartered in Cincinnati. Taft was assured of support by the Cincinnati bar and important Ohio politicians, but the appointments would not be made before the end of the year. He was enthusiastic about the possibility of attaining the position, in spite of opposition at home. As he wrote his father, ―Nellie is very much opposed to my taking it. She thinks it is a sort of shelving 33 The background to the controversy is discussed in Charles S. Campbell, ―The AngloAmerican Crisis in the Bering Sea, 1890-1891,‖ Mississippi Valley Historical Review 48 (December 1961): 393-414. 34 WHT to Alphonso Taft, January 23, 1891. 35 WHT to HHT, May 16, 1891.

32

Richard G. Frederick

for life. If it comes to me I shall certainly take it, for I like judicial life, and there is only one higher judicial position in the country than that.‖ After some thought, he further concluded that, ―Federal Judgeships like that don‘t lie around loose, and if you don‘t get them when you can, you will not get them when you would. It would be in the line of promotion to the Supreme Court, . . .‖ 36 President Harrison delayed until late in the year before deciding on the appointments, but Will‘s name was on the list, as he had hoped. His brothers were effusive in their congratulations, with Horace opining that there was a dignity to the appointment to the Bench ―and a chance for fine service that [does] not come with the finest private practice.‖ 37 In March of 1892, Will officially resigned his position as Solicitor General and took up the duties of his new office as judge for the Sixth U.S. Judicial Circuit, with a salary of $6,000, a thousand less than he had been making.

FEDERAL JUDGE Two years in Washington had expanded Taft‘s horizons significantly. Most importantly, perhaps, he learned about federal statutes and their application in a practical way that went far beyond what he had learned in law school or in his practice in Cincinnati. This obviously had application to his position on the federal bench and, looking ahead, to the Supreme Court position he hoped to attain. He also widened his circle of acquaintances in Washington. Besides meeting socially with Supreme Court justices and their wives, the Tafts dined with various cabinet members and other important personages in the Harrison administration. At some point, he also met Theodore Roosevelt. The effervescent New Yorker, serving as Civil Service Commissioner in the early 1890s, was to have an immense influence on Taft‘s later life and public career. Life in Washington had no less an effect on Nellie. After some initial trepidation, she took easily to Washington society, although she and Will ventured out less than other couples. She was nervous before giving her first dinner, an affair she arranged on the occasion of Charley and Annie‘s visit in January 1891, but it ―passed off very pleasantly,‖ according to her husband.38 36 WHT to Alphonso Taft, March 7 and 13, 1891. 37 Horace Taft to WHT, January 12, 1892; Henry W. Taft to WHT, December 18, 1891. 38 WHT to Alphonso Taft, January 23, 1891.

At the Bar and the Bench

33

She seemed to delight in accompanying friends and relatives who were visiting to see the sights of the capital. It would appear that the lessons learned growing up in Cincinnati society applied to Washington as well. She was not anxious to return to Ohio and the proscribed life of the wife of a jurist whose husband, furthermore, was on a circuit court and likely to be absent from home for several weeks each year. Nellie and Will did make the move back to Cincinnati, accompanied not only by son Robert but also by his sister, Helen Herron, born August 1, 1891. They were not able to move back into the home in Walnut Hills, having rented it the previous year, but were able to occupy a home owned by friends. Nellie‘s following years in Cincinnati would be busy and productive ones. One of the prime movers of the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra Association, she was for many years the President of the organization responsible for creating a professional symphony in the city.39 Her family responsibilities also grew, with the addition of baby Charles Phelps on September 20, 1897. If being in Cincinnati was a burden, she certainly made the best of it. Meanwhile, Will‘s work on the court was both challenging and fulfilling. He traveled a great deal, as the court‘s jurisdiction included the states of Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan. He did not seem to find this particularly arduous, though he was happiest at home in Cincinnati with his family. The casework was varied and there were enjoyable social functions in the cities where he held court. These may have seemed like halcyon times for the Taft family, but Will‘s years on the court were marred by the distressing economic conditions in the country, and the resultant friction between capital and labor during the 1890s. Beginning early in 1893, a financial panic of unprecedented proportion overtook the country. Hundreds of banks and thousands of businesses failed. The stock market plummeted. Railroads were especially hard hit, with many declaring bankruptcy and most halting new construction. Unemployment rose as high as 20% in 1894. An epidemic of wage cuts swept the nation, as employers sought to deal with declining trade. The result was a series of strikes, especially in 1894, which led to more laborers on strike than in any previous year.40 One of these major strikes would have an impact on Taft and, though his ruling was only peripheral to the center of the affair, it would continue to be cited as a political issue into his presidency. 39 Reel 18 of the Taft Papers contains a great deal of correspondence dealing with Mrs. Taft‘s varied activities with the Cincinnati Symphony. Cf. Anthony, Nellie Taft, chap. 6. 40 For a discussion of economic and labor conditions in the 1890s, see Harold U. Faulkner, Politics, Reform and Expansion, 1890-1900 (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), chap. 7-8.

34

Richard G. Frederick

This was the Pullman strike of 1894. It began in the ―model‖ factory town that George Pullman had built to house workers in his adjacent plants where Pullman ―palace‖ cars and other railroad cars were built. When workers there affiliated themselves with the newly-formed American Railway Union, the strike spread to Chicago and other cities, where thousands of railroad workers refused to handle trains which carried Pullman cars. On July 2, officials of the federal government in Chicago served an injunction on strike leaders, ordering them not to interfere with the delivery of United States mail, which was carried on the trains. After some rioting in Chicago on July 3, President Cleveland ordered federal troops to that city. Some mob violence then followed, which gave government officials the pretense to arrest strike leaders, including Eugene Debs and three other ARU officials. Taft‘s involvement in the affair came with the arrival in Cincinnati of an ARU leader named Frank Phelan, who was dispatched to stir up support for the strike in Cincinnati and other rail centers. One of the major Cincinnati railroads was in the hands of a receiver and Phelan was enjoined by the Federal District Court to cease attempts to encourage a strike against the road. When he continued attempts to foment a strike, he was charged with contempt of court and came before Judge Taft. 41 Mrs. Taft had taken the children and gone north to the family‘s vacation place on the St. Lawrence River while the Judge stayed behind and finished the summer‘s work. As always when the couple was separated, Taft wrote almost daily letters to his wife. In July of 1894, the subject more often than not was the railroad strike. Taft‘s sentiments were clearly against the workers. On July 7, for example, he opined that the ―alarming and distressing‖ situation would not be resolved without ―much bloodletting.‖ Noting that there were reports of thirty men killed by troops, he claimed that ―everybody hopes that it is true.‖ A few days later, he called the strike‘s leaders ―demagogic and insane‖ and ―determined to provoke a civil war.‖ 42 In view of these strong opinions, expressed privately to his wife, Taft‘s decision in the matter may have seemed a foregone conclusion. He did find Phelan guilty of contempt and sentenced him to six months in the county jail. His decision was not, however, merely a reflection of the situation of the moment, but of a consistent outlook on the subject since his time on the Ohio Superior Court and his decision in Moores and Co. Then, he had ruled against a secondary boycott; now, he similarly delineated the difference between the 41 Duffy, Taft, pp. 39-40; Pringle, Taft, I:134-35. 42 WHT to HHT, July 7 and 9, 1894.

At the Bar and the Bench

35

right to strike legally and the illegal boycott against other railroads carrying Pullman cars. In doing so, he incurred the hostility of labor leaders, some of whom would remember during the 1908 Presidential election that Taft was ―antiunion‖ or ―anti-labor.‖ In fact, his decision specifically defended the rights of workingmen to unionize and bargain collectively, to amass funds, elect officials and go on strike. What Phelan had done, he argued, was to prevail on workers in companies other than Pullman‘s to injure him by quitting their own companies. Individual workers had the right to leave their employment, but ―they had no right to combine to quit in order thereby to compel their employer to withdraw from a mutually profitable relation with a third person for the purpose of injuring that third person.‖ He concluded by addressing the ―gigantic character of the conspiracy‖ of the ARU ―to paralyze utterly all the traffic‖ of the railroads. 43 Taft‘s opinion in the case may have seemed in line with the conservative anti-union stance of the federal government against the American Railway Union, but his strong statement about unions in general was not. As one biographer has asserted, Taft‘s ―defense of the right to strike was the first clear, emphatic judicial expression on that subject.‖ 44 Later in the decade, Taft also upheld workers‘ rights in cases involving corporate negligence and workers‘ compensation. The other decision Taft rendered which would impact his later career, was in an 1898 case involving the Addystone Pipe Company. At issue was the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act, designed to counter the growing tendency toward monopoly among American corporations. The law applied to businesses engaged in interstate commerce, which the federal government had the constitutional right to regulate, and outlawed conspiratorial actions in restraint of trade. In spite of some attempts in the early 1890s by federal authorities to apply the statute, the conservative, pro-business Supreme Court of the time essentially nullified the law with a narrow interpretation of its provisions. By the late 1890s, the Sherman Act was all but moot as a result of the Supreme Court decisions. When six Midwestern companies which manufactured and sold cast-iron pipe formed a pooling operation to control prices, the Justice Department filed a suit against them, which was dismissed in the lower courts. On appeal, the case came before Judge Taft. In his ruling, handed down in February of 1898, he found against the corporations, and 43 The decision is quoted in Duffy, Taft, pp. 41-45. 44 Pringle, Taft, I:137.

36

Richard G. Frederick

ordered their combination broken up. Taft deftly worded his arguments so that he seemed to be in accord with the Supreme Court‘s earlier rulings in similar cases. He claimed that this case was different, in that there was more clarity on the issue of restraining interstate commerce than in the other cases, and he ended by citing the government‘s constitutional ability to regulate interstate commerce. 45 The Addystone Pipe case, upheld by the Supreme Court, prefigured Taft‘s interest in the antitrust question, which would become one of the hallmarks of his presidential administration. The eight years on the federal bench were a pleasurable time for Taft. There seemed to be no doubt about his career path, although there was a brief discussion in 1899 about the possibility of an appointment to the presidency of Yale University. 46 He was immersed in the law, which he loved. He was developing a reputation in judicial circles, which should do much to carry him to the next level to which he aspired. He also found joy in leisure time. His extended family, which included brothers Charley, Henry, and Horace, took to gathering during most summers with their families for vacations together in Canada, at Murray Bay along the St. Lawrence. It was here, in 1894, that brother Henry, an early member of the first golf club in the United States, introduced Will to the sport. He quickly became a fanatic, playing on the poor nine-hole course at Murray Bay every chance he got. 47 So the decade of the 1890s went along. At the turn of the century, Taft would get a new opportunity, but it was not the one he hoped for, not the Supreme Court. Totally unexpected when it came, the new appointment would send his career in an entirely new direction.

45 The case is thoroughly discussed in ibid. I:143-47. 46 Taft‘s brother Henry, a successful New York attorney, thought Will should allow his friends to press his candidacy; Will responded that his Unitarian religious beliefs disqualified him for the position. See Henry Taft to WHT, January 14, 1899 and the reply, January 23, 1899. 47 Shepherd Campbell and Peter Landau, Presidential Lies: The Illustrated History of White House Golf (New York: Macmillan, 1996), pp. 19-20.

Chapter 3

GOVERNING THE PHILIPPINES The telegram came on a Monday in late January, 1900. ―I would like to see you in Washington on important business within the next few days. On Thursday if possible,‖ read the summons from President McKinley to Judge Taft. Unaware of any pending openings on the Supreme Court, Taft was nevertheless hopeful as he traveled to Washington to meet with the President. Their meeting was attended by two Cabinet members, Secretary of the Navy, John D. Long, and Secretary of War, Elihu Root. To Taft‘s surprise, he was asked by McKinley to become a member of a Commission to establish a civil government in the Philippine Islands. Although Taft protested that he had not been in favor of the United States maintaining control over the islands, he promised to think the matter over and respond to the offer as soon as possible.1 Nellie approved without hesitation. ―I knew instantly that I didn‘t want to miss a big and novel experience,‖ she later recalled. Brothers Horace and Harry were also enthusiastic, although the latter expressed concern about Taft‘s position on the Commission. Being just a member did not ―strike me as tempting,‖ he wrote, but being President of the Commission (which McKinley evidently held out as a strong possibility in making the offer) was another matter. This would justify Taft‘s resignation from the bench and offer him a chance to accomplish ―notable work‖ for the country.2 Taft took Harry‘s advice to heart. A few days later, he addressed his concerns to Elihu Root, who would be his immediate superior if he accepted 1

Margaret Leech, In the Days of McKinley (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959), pp. 484-86; Mrs. WHT, Recollections, pp. 32-34. 2 Mrs. WHT, Recollections, p. 33; Henry W. Taft to WHT, January 30, 1900 and Horace Taft to WHT, January 31, 1900.

38

Richard G. Frederick

the position. Taft wrote of the ―perplexing problems‖ and the ―responsibility and risk‖ in taking them on. He thought he would be equal to the task, given his penchant for hard work and ―earnest desire to succeed,‖ but felt he ―should like to be in a position in which I shall be really responsible for success or failure.‖ In other words, he sought the position as President of the Commission.3 When Root reassured him on this point, the Tafts began to make preparations to sail to the Philippines. The task that Taft and the other members of the Commission would be undertaking for the next few years would, in fact, be perplexing and difficult. When the United States entered the war against Spain in 1898, an insurgent revolution was already underway in the Philippines, under the leadership of Emilio Aguinaldo. After Admiral Dewey‘s stirring defeat of the Spanish fleet in Manila harbor on May 1, American land forces took the city from its few Spanish defenders. While the city was in American hands by the end of the war in August, the countryside was essentially controlled by the insurgents. The McKinley administration was faced with the question of what to do with the Philippines. President McKinley was later quoted by a Chicago newspaperman as having admitted that, when the war began, he did not know within 2,000 miles where the Philippines were located. Later, he allegedly remarked that ―If old Dewey had just sailed away when he smashed that Spanish fleet, what a lot of trouble he would have saved us.‖4 The President changed his outlook as 1898 went along. Not only were the islands considered valuable by many as a stepping-stone for trade in the Far East, but they also attracted attention from other potential rivals in the Pacific, notably Germany and Japan. The Treaty of Paris, signed by Spain and the United States in December 1898, included the Spanish cession of the Philippines in exchange for $20,000,000. The Senate ratified the treaty in a close vote the following February 6. The problem was that the insurgent Filipinos had expected to govern themselves when the Spanish were ousted. Tensions were high between U.S. military forces and the armed natives around Manila. An over-eager General Elwell Otis and his like-minded staff made increasingly harsh demands on Aguinaldo. Finally, on February 4, a minor skirmish between a few American

3 4

WHT to Elihu Root, February 2, 1900, Root Papers, Box 164. H. H. Kohlsaat, From McKinley to Harding: Personal Recollections of Our Presidents (New York, 1923), p. 68.

Governing the Philippines

39

volunteers and Filipino soldiers led to an American artillery barrage against the Filipino positions around Manila. War had begun.5 President McKinley‘s policy toward the islands was one he labeled ―benevolent assimilation.‖ His intent was to grant limited sovereignty to the Filipinos under the control of the United States, rather than encouraging the formation of a Philippine nation. In seeking ways to accommodate these goals and ameliorate the Filipinos, he appointed a committee to investigate conditions in the islands and make recommendations about the transition from Spanish to American control. Cornell University President Jacob Gould Schurman headed the group, which also included Charles Denby, a longtime envoy to China, and Dean Worcester, who had spent many years in the Philippines studying animal species. The Schurman Commission was appointed just before the war broke out and arrived just after. The group dutifully held meetings in Manila, although its ex-officio members General Otis and Admiral Dewey rarely, if ever, attended. (This would foreshadow the friction between the later Taft Commission and military officials in the islands.) After only a month of hearings, mainly with Americans and other Westerners in the islands, the group issued a document calling for ―a modicum of political autonomy, an honest civil service, an equitable judicial system, public-works projects, economic development programs and other reforms.‖ All would be accomplished, however, through a system of American ―supremacy‖ over the Philippines. In a more comprehensive report issued in September, Schurman‘s group outlined a more concrete plan for Filipino self-government in the provinces and cities, with American supervision6 The Schurman Commission was a start, but McKinley soon realized the necessity of establishing a civil government in the area to supplant U.S. military authority and begin the process of establishing local provincial governments and carrying out reforms. Mutual friends suggested to McKinley that Will Taft was capable of such a commission, though the two Ohioans had met only recently. The Commission was to be a five-man body, with one holdover from the Schurman Commission, the University of Michigan zoologist, Dean Worcester. Other members included General Luke Wright, a Memphis attorney and Confederate Civil War veteran, Judge Henry C. Ide, a 5

Stuart Creighton Miller, “Benevolent Assimilation”: The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), chap. iii-iv. 6 Stanley Karnow, In Our Image: America’s Empire in the Philippines (New York: Ballantine Books, 1990), pp. 150-52 (quote on p. 151).

40

Richard G. Frederick

Vermonter who had held an appointment as Chief Justice of Samoa, and Professor Bernard Moses of the University of California, whose interest in Spanish-American countries led him to write a book on the constitution in Colombia. The commissioners, mostly with family members, sailed as a group from San Francisco. Taft was invited to speak at the University of California before leaving, and he attended several banquets in the Bay area. He also had one interesting encounter on an overnight visit with family members in San Diego. William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic Presidential candidate in 1896, and about to be nominated again in 1900, was traveling on Taft‘s train between Los Angeles and San Diego. He attempted to press his anti-imperialist views on the Philippine question on Taft, who was singularly unimpressed. ―His knowledge of history is defective; his style is that of the veriest demagogue, and, while he is a handsome fellow, and has a good voice, I should be sorry to think of him as President of the United States, even if I agreed with his peculiar views,‖ Taft wrote about the man against whom he would run for President in 1908.7 The Taft party sailed for Manila on April 17, 1900 aboard the Hancock, an army transport vessel refitted to make the voyage comfortable. Will and Nellie were assigned the cabin normally used by the commanding officer of the troops on board. All three children made the trip, along with Nellie‘s sister, Maria, who came along to assist with the children, as well as, one assumes, to enjoy an adventure abroad and perhaps find a matrimonial prospect. There was a good deal of socializing among the families and much time spent on the promenade deck. Will‘s weight was the subject of some family concern, and he took daily walks on the deck, in the hope of shedding some bulk before reaching the tropical climate of the Philippines. There was also work to be accomplished on the trip. The Commissioners met daily for hours and discussed matters of organization and the charges they were given to accomplish. Before leaving, Taft had expressed his views on what was to be done, in a somewhat paternalistic manner consistent with the expressions of other American statesmen of the time: ―My purpose in going to the Philippines is to give to the people of those islands as good a government as it is possible for them to have, with as large a measure of autonomy as is consistent with the stability essential to the elevation of their civilization. Our sole purpose as I conceive it should be to 7

WHT to Miss Annie Roelker, April 16, 1900.

Governing the Philippines

41

better the people there. One of the essential things in the formation of any government out there is the strictest kind of civil service reform system eliminating all taint of spoils from the selection of the men who are to do the 8 governmental work in those islands.‖

Taft hoped that much of the groundwork could be laid for reform quickly, since his instructions from the President, drawn up by Secretary Root, indicated that the Commission would become the legislative body in the islands by the first of September. Until then, Taft thought the group ―shall devote the time between our arrival and that date to looking the ground over and making such recommendations as may occur to us.‖9 The trip across was mainly uneventful, with the exception of a four-day stop in Hawaii. A recent outbreak of the plague spawned misgivings about going ashore, but the Tafts ventured into Honolulu and toured local sites. Nellie went to a poi banquet and Taft visited with President Sanford Dole. Will and Nellie ventured into the ocean in outrigger boats and swept into shore on massive waves. Although General Wright and Judge Ide were nearly killed in ―surf-riding‖ incidents, Taft wrote that the Honolulu sojourn was ―on the whole, a most delightful episode.‖10 A similar adventure, albeit a less dangerous one, awaited the group at its next destination. The Hancock landed at Yokohama and the party spent a week in Japan. Taft toured many of the local sites, sometimes with his family, and sometimes with other members of the Commission. He saw much that was beautiful, but remarked that he had not studied what things should be seen in Japan, and ―have a feeling that my sight seeing is therefore of no service.‖ He also handled a practical matter in Yokohama, by ordering ten white linen suits (at $5 apiece) from a local Chinese tailor, as well as a tuxedo for evening wear in the tropics. ―I shall have a snapshot taken of myself in the white suit, so that you may see what a magnificent figure I cut,‖ he wrote his brother.11 The high point of the Japanese trip was an audience with the Emperor at his palace in Tokyo. Taft and the other men bowed their way into the imperial presence, dressed in their finery of ―swallowtail, white tie and white gloves and silk hats.‖ The Emperor shook Taft‘s hand and asked a few perfunctory questions about his stay in Japan. Taft was more impressed with the 8

Taft to James R. Garfield, February 22, 1900, James R. Garfield Papers, Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress, Box 121. 9 WHT to CPT, April 15, 1900. 10 WHT to CPT, April 27, 1900.; Mrs. WHT, Recollections, pp. 46-52. 11 WHT to CPT, May 12 and 18, 1900.

42

Richard G. Frederick

surroundings and the ceremony than with the man. ―The Emperor is by no means a beauty,‖ he wrote, attributing part of this to his ―‗soaking‘ for a good many years‖ in the saki, or rice wine, of the country. ―There is a controversy as to whether he is a man of force and ability or not,‖ Taft wrote. ―If he ever was I think he must have lost it by his habits.‖12 More satisfying was Taft‘s dinner meeting with an old Yale classmate, Baron Tajiri Inajiro, the Vice Minister of Finance. After Yokohama came Nagasaki for sightseeing and refueling, this time without Nellie, who stayed in Yokohama for the summer with Mrs. Wright while Taft went ahead and made domestic arrangements in Manila. The group then sailed to Hong Kong, where Taft purchased more clothing, employed Chinese servants, and met with members of an émigré Filipino community. The Commission finally arrived in Manila Bay on June 3, 1900.13 The first impressions of the place centered on the temperature. Edith Moses, the wife of Commissioner Bernard Moses, expressed what all must have felt. ―Hot? You never imagined the meaning of that word.‖ While the temperature was ―only‖ 99 degrees, the humidity made it seem much warmer. But Mrs. Moses also expressed the spirit that all in the group must have shared as well. ―Thin clothing and excitement are helping us to bear the heat, for there is a sense of exhilaration in the thought that we are at last in Oriental America.‖14 Taft‘s exhilaration at the moment may have been tempered by the prospect of friction between his Commission and American military leaders in Manila. General Otis had been replaced by McKinley, and was in fact sailing home as Taft was crossing the Pacific. His successor as military governor was General Arthur MacArthur, a capable officer, but one who firmly believed that control of the islands during the insurrection should reside with the military rather than any ad hoc civilian group appointed by the President. Taft‘s initial impressions of MacArthur were based as much on hope as reality. He received a dispatch from the General while he was still en route in Hong Kong, promising a ―cordial greeting and a warm welcome‖ for the Commission upon its arrival. This did not include the General‘s presence at the harbor however, as he dispatched his military secretary to escort the 12

WHT to CPT, May 18, 1900. Taft describes details of these places and events in a series of letters to his brother, Charles. The letters were to be circulated to other family members; Taft thought of collecting and publishing them later, but he never did so. 14 Edith Moses, Unofficial Letters of an Official’s Wife (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1908), p. 1. 13

Governing the Philippines

43

dignitaries to the Ayuntamiento, the government headquarters in Manila. Taft wrote his brother that MacArthur ―made a very favorable impression on all the Commission.‖15 He wrote in quite a different vein to Nellie, telling her that the Commission‘s reception by the General on a very hot day ―was so cool that Mr. Taft said he almost stopped perspiring.‖ Furthermore, when Taft reminded MacArthur of the great extent of the General‘s authority as Chief Executive in the Islands, MacArthur allegedly replied to the effect that ―that would be all right if I hadn‘t been exercising so much more power than that before you came.‖16 The problem of divided government would only intensify after September, when the Commission became the Island‘s legislative body while MacArthur retained executive power. Before beginning work, Taft had to make arrangements for housing, not only for himself, but for the entire family which would arrive at the end of the summer. General MacArthur suggested he consider a house recently used by another general, but Taft found it dirty and ―run down, having been used to pasture the horses of General Wheaton, whose headquarters it was.‖ Mrs. Moses, accompanying Taft on the trip, described the place as ―looking forlorn enough now with the magenta wall paper detached from the ceiling, a dry, unkempt lawn in front . . . the whole place is dirty and neglected.‖ After looking at several other available houses, and finding them much worse, Taft settled on the place which MacArthur had suggested. With its gated seawall along Manila Bay, a porch along the back of the house, and several very large rooms on the second floor, the house would prove to be an effective place for family living and the large-scale entertaining that went along with Taft‘s position.17 After his inauguration as Governor in 1901, the Tafts would move to Malacanan Palace. Once the Commission commenced working, its chairman characterized the task to be accomplished as ―herculean.‖ He had a plan, however. Taft defined the major areas to be considered and assigned each to a member of the Commission. ―Each man will take his subjects, investigate the laws covering the subject matter and the present conditions, the need of legislative changes, and will draft laws to meet the requirements,‖ he wrote.18 Based on their earlier experiences, other Commissioners would deal with areas such as 15

WHT to CPT, June 2, 1900. Mrs. WHT, Recollections, pp. 81-82. Cf. Rowland T. Berthoff, ―Taft and MacArthur, 19001901: A Study in Civil-Military Relations,‖ World Politics 5 (January 1953): 196-213. 17 WHT to CPT, June 12, 1900; Moses, Unofficial Letters, pp. 4-5. 18 WHT to CPT, June 15, 1900. 16

44

Richard G. Frederick

schools, taxation, civil procedures and courts, and banks and currency. Taft, Wright, and Ide worked on the codification of civil laws for the Islands, and all the Commissioners contributed to the development of central and provincial governments. Taft saved for himself the establishment of the civil service, which he saw as essential to the functioning of any government in the Islands. He also personally took on the issue of the friars‘ lands, seen by most observers as the thorniest of all the problems in the Philippines. During 300 years of Spanish rule over the Islands, Catholic priests had come to exert a great deal of power in the far-flung reaches of the island group. Most of these were members of four monastic orders, the Dominicans, Augustinians, Recolletos, and Franciscans. The friars had the support of both the Catholic Church and the government of Spain, and were subsidized by the latter. In many of the outlying towns, the priests represented the authority of Spain, in government as well as religion. They collected taxes, settled disputes, and disseminated official pronouncements and laws. They also came into ownership of hundreds of thousands of acres of prime farm land as well as buildings in Manila and other cities. It was inevitable that the exercise of such power would bring abuses. As one American writer observed, ―The ranks of such orders were recruited too often from among the lower classes in Spain, to whom a distant field and isolated parishes meant simply an opportunity to tyrannize over a simple people and to gratify their own desires and possessions unchecked.‖19 Many of the priests had affairs with native women. The children of such unions often received special attention and education and became part of the country‘s elite. On one occasion, a prominent Manila lawyer presented Taft with a list of notable descendants of friars, which included his own name.20 When the rebellion against Spanish authority broke out in the mid-1890s, the friars were often targeted, especially in the provinces, where they lacked the protection of Spanish troops. At least 40 were killed and hundreds were imprisoned. By the time Taft arrived in Manila, some 400 were still imprisoned. Lands belonging to the orders were seized and declared in the hands of the people. When President McKinley appointed the second Commission to the Philippines, one of the group‘s charges was to investigate the situation and make a recommendation. But the Commission was not alone 19

Daniel R. Williams, The Odyssey of the Philippine Commission (Chicago: A.C. McClurg & Co., 1913), p. 75. 20 Ibid., p. 78; WHT to CPT, December 13, 1900; for a positive view of the friars, see Stephen Bonsal, ―The Work of the Friars,‖ North American Review 248 (October 1902):449-60.

Governing the Philippines

45

in examining the problem. The Catholic Church also had a considerable stake in the matter; Archbishop Placide L. Chapelle of New Orleans was appointed by the Vatican as Apostolic Delegate to the Philippines, and arrived there several months ahead of Taft and the other Commissioners. Taft and Chapelle seemed to have agreed that the situation involved two major questions. The first was the matter of the friars‘ return to their positions throughout the islands. The second involved their land holdings, which the Vatican regarded as the property of the Catholic Church. In the event that the friars did not return to their parishes, how would the Church receive fair value for their lands? Taft and Chapelle maintained cordial relations as they negotiated their respective positions, but it was clear that they did not share common opinions. After their first meeting, which occurred aboard the Hancock in Manila harbor, Taft was convinced that Chapelle was a strong advocate of the friars‘ return.21 Having just arrived, Taft was not sure that such a course was wise, and became opposed to it over the next few months, as he collected testimony from natives and others in the islands. The two men obviously came to an impasse over the return of the friars. By 1901, Chapelle wrote Taft that, in his opinion, the Commission ―has taken, unconsciously perhaps, indirectly surely, a hostile attitude towards the Catholic Church and her interests.‖ Not only was this Chapelle‘s view, he assured Taft, but also ―the sincere conviction of all the conservative, wise and serious minded men, both here and in America‖ who were concerned with the subject. He further warned Taft that the Commission was in danger of bringing about religious conflict in the Islands, which would likely cause the pacification efforts to fail, wreck the Commission, and weaken Taft‘s career standing.22 Taft expressed his opinion privately on the matter to his brothers and to Secretary Root before publicly articulating the government‘s decision. In contrast to what Chapelle thought, Taft acknowledged that the Islands were Catholic and should remain so. But, he maintained, ―It is not strictly a religious question.‖ The problem, as he stated it, was ―we have a mediaeval (sic) Archbishop from America who is quite in sympathy with the mediaeval (sic) methods of the friars and who fails to see the real solution of the question, to-wit: that the friars must go.‖ Religious conflict in the Islands was the fault of Chapelle and his support of the friars, according to Taft, who noted that one

21 22

WHT to CPT, June 15, 1900. P.L. Chapelle to WHT, April 13, 1901.

46

Richard G. Frederick

branch of the leading native political party maintained its Catholicism, but declared its independence of the Pope as a result of the issue.23 The resolution of the issue would not come until later in Taft‘s tenure, and would involve a personal trip to the Vatican. In the meantime, there were other weighty matters for the Commissioners to resolve. One incident, involving amnesty issues and Filipino nationalism, had a humorous side. Pedro A. Paterno was a Filipino with a reputation for working both sides during the insurrection against Spain. With the Spanish gone, he had pledged fealty to the United States, but worked with Aguinaldo‘s forces; later, he offered to serve as an intermediary between the rebel leader and the United States. When General MacArthur made a general amnesty offer to insurrectos who would lay down their arms and support the U.S.-backed government in the Philippines, Paterno was ecstatic. He proposed to hold a three-day amnesty festival in Manila, with the centerpiece being a huge banquet where American officials and Filipinos, including former insurrectionists could come together and celebrate. General MacArthur gave permission for the festivities, but declared that military personnel would not be in attendance at the banquet, since he felt it was a security risk. Given Paterno‘s hearty assurances that the banquet would honor the United States presence in the Philippines, Taft and other Commissioners agreed to attend. As the evening of the banquet drew near, Taft began to hear disquieting rumors about the proposed speakers at the banquet. In spite of Paterno‘s assurances, it appeared as though all the speeches to be delivered would have a nationalistic flavor, and promote American withdrawal and Philippine independence. This was something that the Taft and the government in Washington were not yet ready to concede to the Filipinos, so Taft and the other Commissioners promptly cancelled plans to attend. Since MacArthur had made it plain that the banquet could only take place if attended by Commissioners, it was in danger of becoming a total fiasco. At the last minute, after the guests had assembled, Paterno rushed to Taft‘s house and implored him to attend. With the agreement that no speeches would be made, Taft agreed to go. Commissioner Moses‘ wife wrote an amusing account of the ―dangerous fiesta,‖ observing that ―Some persons think the rumors of uprisings are often started by natives for the fun of seeing the soldiers turn out.‖ She concluded that: ―Altogether the Amnesty banquet to the military governor [who refused to attend] has been like a giant Gilbert and Sullivan opera. From a woman‘s 23

WHT to Henry W. Taft, January 28, 1901 (February 1 addendum).

Governing the Philippines

47

standpoint it seems queer that defenseless civilians were obliged to go to a banquet soldiers thought it unsafe to attend, but there was no doubt some deep political reason we can‘t understand.‖ Taft‘s decision to finally attend the banquet, she observed, owed to his nature as ―the kindest of men.‖24 Taft gained a reputation for being receptive to the wishes of the Filipinos and sympathetic to their interests. In one speech extolling the notion of increasing trade between the United States and the islands, he referred to the Philippine native as ―our little brown brother.‖ This was not a particularly appealing image to the American troops fighting in the islands, who responded with a song (sung to the tune of ―Son of a Gamboleer‖): ―I‘m only a common soldier in the blasted Philippines They say I‘ve got brown brothers here, but I dunno what it means. I like the word fraternity, but still I draw the line. He may be a brother of Big Bill Taft, 25 But he ain‘t no brother of mine!‖

In spite of his rhetoric and his desire to work with the natives, Taft often expressed harsh judgments about the insurrection and those involved in it. After McKinley‘s reelection in 1900 ended much of the anti-imperialist agitation heard during the campaign, Taft urged a more severe policy toward the insurrectos. He suggested a period of one to two months during which they could receive amnesty. For those who continued resistance, ―they will be treated, as they ought to be treated as nothing but outlaws, murderers, and robbers. I have urgently recommended that authority be given to send them to Guam.‖26 In a similar vein, he criticized General MacArthur for being ―too slow and deliberate and timid.‖ By the end of 1900, he found that the General was finally moving against the insurgents with some more dispatch than earlier, but ―The truth is that MacArthur‘s policy is largely one of drifting and of waiting for time to cure conditions without taking radical steps.‖27 Taft‘s impatience with MacArthur and his policies did not change much in the next year. While the General was concerned with only military affairs, Taft‘s major concern was to institute civil government in the Islands, and he saw the continued 24

Moses, Unofficial Letters, pp. 45-49. Leon Wolff, Little Brown Brother: How the United States Purchased and Pacified the Philippine Islands at the Century’s Turn (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961), p. 313. 26 WHT to CPT, November 6, 1900. 27 WHT to CPT, November 15, 1900. 25

48

Richard G. Frederick

military operations as a barrier to that goal. In a long letter to Vice-President Theodore Roosevelt, Taft explored the matter further, finding that at least part of MacArthur‘s motivation in moving slowly was to retain his authority. As of September 1, 1900 the Commission became the official legislative body for the islands, with the power to authorize all expenditures, but the military had to carry out any legislative actions as long as there was an insurrection.28 By the time they assumed legislative powers, the Commissioners had been in the Islands for nearly three months. This was sufficient time to determine what major tasks should be undertaken, after open discussions with Filipinos, foreigners living in the Islands, and officials back in Washington. The first law passed was an appropriation bill for $2 million for building and repairing roads and bridges, something the Spanish had neglected over the years. Infrastructure repair was important for the effective functioning of trade between the interior and coastal areas, which was vital for economic development. Another road-building project, the development of a route between Manila and Baguio in Benguet province, was also begun. This road would provide access to higher elevations and allow Manila residents (including foreign government officials) to escape the debilitating heat of the Manila summers.29 The fall months were especially busy for the Commissioners. Besides submitting a report to the War Department on all facets of life in the area, they worked on establishing a number of government agencies, including an entire judicial system, which would operate under a civil code they created. They established a Civil Service Board, thus instituting a system to bring talented and qualified people into the government. They compiled major legislation, including a new tariff act and more narrow laws, such as those governing liquor licenses for saloons in Manila.30 Merely to list their accomplishments during this short period is to indicate how assiduously they worked. Taft seemed to thrive during his first year. He had been a hard worker during his time on the court, when he also taught classes and was Dean at the Cincinnati Law School, and often worked at home in the evenings. He told his mother he could not work in the evenings anymore, because of the necessity for safeguarding his health in the tropics. He began the day in his office at 8 or 8:30, worked until 1:00, then went home for lunch with Nellie. After lunch and a one-hour Spanish lesson, he was back in the office by 3 or 3:30 for a daily 28

WHT to Theodore Roosevelt, May 12, 1901. Williams, Odyssey, pp. 90-91. 30 Ibid., pp. 92-119. 29

Governing the Philippines

49

meeting with the other Commissioners. At about 6 most evenings, he walked home for supper, a distance of about two and a half miles.31 He counseled exercise as the only hedge against insomnia in the tropics. He also shared the concerns of his family members about his excessive weight. This, after all, was the period when he reported to Secretary Root that he felt fine after a lengthy ride on a horse and Root famously replied that he was concerned, not about Taft, but about the health of the horse. Unfortunately, one major effect of the tropics that he found was an increase in appetite. While he extolled the virtues of eating fresh fruit, these courses were intermingled with generous amounts of cheese, beefsteak, soup, roasts, and desserts. For all of his interest in exercise, he admitted to gaining some weight, although after more than half a year in residence, he reported that he and the family were hale and hearty.32 1901 would be a year filled with adventures, some planned and some unforeseen. The major Commission activity during the first half of the year was the organization of local governments in the provinces. Taft and the others began in February with a week-long trip to the northern provinces. The party included Commissioners Taft, Worcester, Wright, and Moses, their various secretaries, some Filipino leaders of the Federal Party, and newspaper correspondents. This trip established the pattern used throughout the Islands. Each visit was planned for two or three days, depending on travel arrangements to and from other places in the itinerary. When the group arrived at each provincial capital, members would be formally greeted by local officials. Then Taft generally led off with a speech about the importance of provincial government. He and other Commissioners explained how the system would work, in theory, and solicited local input, which led to some amendments of the system to allow for provincial conditions. The first day was usually accompanied by a great deal of feasting on local food and drink after the opening ceremonies were completed. A display of local talent followed, or was included in, the festivities. The following day or two consisted of meetings of the Commissioners, by themselves and with the local interests. Finally, Taft would announce the name of the Governor of the province and any special conditions under which the province would be governed. Banquets usually preceded the Commissioners‘ departure for the next province.

31 32

WHT to Louise Taft, November 30, 1900. WHT to Henry W. Taft, January 28, 1901 and to Mrs. Herron, January 19, 1901.

50

Richard G. Frederick

A number of the ladies made the trip through the Southern provinces, including Nellie Taft. She opined that her husband and his secretary/translator, Arthur Fergusson, who also weighed over 300 pounds, made a ―remarkable pair.‖ Mrs. Moses, who was also along, agreed, but for reasons other than the combined avoirdupois. She characterized Taft‘s speeches as ―admirable,‖ but what really made them exceptional to the native populations was Fergusson‘s ―rolling sonorous Spanish.‖ Both women commented on the lavish nature of the festivities accorded the Commissioners at each stop. After the first of these, Nellie said the party left ―pretty much exhausted and slightly aghast at the prospect of sixty consecutive days of such strenuous festivities.‖ After the trip ended, though, Mrs. Moses looked back on the experience as ―the event of a lifetime.‖33 After traveling through the northern and southern provinces for a total of nearly two months (March 10 to May 3) and organizing governments in all 18 provinces, Taft was ready for the return to Manila. As he explained to a friend in Cincinnati: ―Doubtless the trip will be called a junket by some people, but the truth is I never have worked harder in my life. The situation is such that the acceptance of the enthusiastic receptions, balls and banquets that are tendered us at every place where we stop is an absolute necessity and a mere addition to the political work which we have to do. A refusal to accept would be regarded as a reflection. The result is that we are working all day and are up until late at night wherever we stop and the strain is very heavy.‖34 Manila would not bring an extended rest, however. Taft‘s duties continued apace at the capital city, and would increase in July, with his inauguration as civil Governor of the Philippine Islands. The ceremony took place on the obviously symbolic date of July 4 in a plaza facing the Ayuntamiento. In what might be interpreted as another symbolic gesture, the swearing-in took place on a platform erected on the foundation of the ―New Palace,‖ a structure planned, but never built, by the Spaniards as a residence for their Governor General. Taft marched to the platform with Generals MacArthur and Chaffee, 33 34

Mrs. WHT, Recollections, pp. 160-61; Moses, Unofficial Letters, p. 125. WHT to Howard C. Hollister, April 12, 1901, quoted in Gary C. Ness, ―Proving Ground for a President: William Howard Taft and the Philippines 1900-1905,‖ Cincinnati Historical Society Bulletin 34 (1976): 219.

Governing the Philippines

51

where he was presented to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who administered the oath. Huge throngs of people attended and applauded wildly as Taft made his inaugural address. The day would have been perfect but for the torrential downpour later in the evening, which drenched Nellie‘s planned reception, forcing it into a ―warm moist crush‖ indoors.35 According to the official announcement issued by Secretary Root, Taft was now empowered to ―exercise the executive authority in all civil affairs in the government of the Philippine Islands heretofore exercised in such affairs by the Military Governor of the Philippines.‖ All municipal and provincial governments would report directly to him. The military no longer performed any civil duties, and was considered subsidiary to Taft‘s office.36 In a few days, General MacArthur would leave the islands and Malacanan Palace would become the new home of Governor General Taft and his family. Will found that the Palace was damp, hot in the daytime, and more expensive to keep than their first home in the Islands. Nellie, however, was thinking of the possibilities for entertaining. She described it as pretty, particularly in its setting of a small park full of large trees that shaded the house. There was a large veranda around three sides, part of which overlooked the Pasig River. Inside, she was quite pleased with the living room and the dining area, which she decorated with screens and plants. She picked out a room to display local artifacts she had assembled, and Will had a study in another large room overlooking the river. The house would certainly do, even if it was a somewhat disheveled palace – ―Not that I wasn‘t well pleased with the idea of living in a palace,‖ she later pointed out.37 There was additional money for entertaining, as well. Not only did Will‘s new position carry a salary increase, but Charlie sent Will a handsome birthday present, in the form of a check for $2,500.38 Will‘s new job brought additional responsibilities in realms other than social. Having obtained a charter for the city of Manila, he was more involved in the affairs of the city. With the withdrawal of military authority, he was concerned more with the diplomatic aspects of his job than ever before, since he was in many respects the singular figure of American authority in the Islands. This meant dealing with all the factions in the Islands, which included 35

WHT to Mother, July 19, 1901; Moses, Unofficial Letters, pp. 157-60; Mrs. WHT, Recollections, pp. 206-10. 36 1-page announcement dated July 4, 1901, Root Papers, Box 164. 37 Helen Herron Taft to her Mother, July 19, 1901; Mrs. WHT, Recollections, p. 212. 38 CPT to WHT, May 5, 1901.

52

Richard G. Frederick

some Americans whose attitudes he particularly deplored. He referred to the ―rag tag and hob tail of Americans, who are not only vicious but stupid.‖ Many were there for the purpose of profiting from the development of the country, but constantly and ―bitterly attack the Commission in every way for appointing Filipinos and sneer at every effort which we make.‖39 He expressed similar feelings about the opinions of the ―irresponsible editors‖ of the two Manila newspapers, ―who delight, now that the military government is over, to show the impunity with which they can abuse people and manifest their superiority by contemptuous references to the constituted authorities.‖40 The military government may have been over and MacArthur gone from the country, but that did not mean the end of the squabbles about authority. Major General Adna R. Chaffee, an old-line cavalry officer who had seen service in the Civil War, was in charge of military forces and was reluctant to recognize any superior civilian government. He was particularly adamant after a revolt in the province of Samar at the end of September, which resulted in the virtual annihilation of the company of U.S. soldiers stationed there in the village of Balangiga. He issued a memorandum declaring that a state of war existed throughout the islands, which meant that the civil governments and courts had no right to interfere with ―the full power and influence of the Army, physical and moral, . . . .‖41 Taft‘s response was that war existed in, at most, 4 or 5 provinces. This did not justify Chaffee‘s proposal to shut down civil courts throughout the islands and establish absolute military power. Taft suggested to Chaffee ―a careful working out of concurrent jurisdiction between the civil and the military,‖ while noting that the power in both areas derived from the President of the United States. He privately told Secretary Root that Chaffee was stirring up the military with ―rumors of insurrection in the most peaceful provinces.‖ The rift between Taft and Chaffee ultimately reached the press, and caused President Roosevelt to instruct both men in no uncertain terms to come to an agreement.42 A compromise agreement, which covered civil codes and amnesty, would be reached, but Taft felt the new President‘s dispatch was

39

WHT to Elihu Root, October 14, 1901, Root Papers, Box 164. WHT to CPT, August 27, 1901. 41 Memorandum from H.Q. Division of the Philippines, Manila, October 11, 1901, Root Papers, Box 164. 42 WHT to Chaffee, October 13, 1901 and to Root, October 14, 1901, both in ibid., Box 164; Miller, “Benevolent Assimilation,” chap. 11. 40

Governing the Philippines

53

―peremptory and unpleasant,‖ in contrast with the gentler methods of the late President McKinley.43 Taft did not have much chance to dwell on the new President‘s approach to problems. Shortly after Nellie left for a trip to Japan and China on October 1, he suffered a bout of what was initially diagnosed as dengue fever, an unpleasant disease associated with tropical climes. After spending nearly two weeks in bed, he attended to affairs in his office, but became ill and was again confined to bed. He was ultimately carried on a stretcher from home and taken to the Army‘s First Reserve Hospital, where doctors cut open and drained a deep rectal fistula. Concerns about blood poisoning and gangrene led to further rest and another operation to speed the process of granulation in the infected area. The patient was unable to work during the ordeal, and many of his duties were assumed by General Wright. Faced with the prospect of further rest, and perhaps another operation, Taft suggested a trip back to the States. He explained to Secretary Root that his convalescence might better be accomplished stateside, in combination with the opportunity to appear before Congress and testify about conditions in the Philippines. He could also present a legislative plan to carry out his Commission‘s recommendations. Rather than lying around in the Philippines for a month, he could take a three-month leave of absence. When Root approved the plan, the Tafts made arrangements for their return; they sailed from Manila on Christmas Eve, 1901.44 Landing in stormy San Francisco in January, the family embarked on a train for Cincinnati. In Omaha, they were met with the sad news that Nellie‘s mother had died. In spite of their arrival in Cincinnati the day before the funeral, Nellie was too overcome to attend the ceremony. She was diagnosed with malaria a short time later.45 After establishing the family with relatives in Cincinnati, Taft was off to Washington. There, he would spend the next few months meeting privately with Senators and Congressmen, testifying in committee hearings about conditions in the Islands, and discussing affairs with Secretary Root and President Roosevelt. There were plenty of social events as well. Dinners at the White House were on Taft‘s calendar, as well as outings with the Forakers and other Ohio politicians, Supreme Court Justices, and other Washington 43

WHT to Horace Taft, October 21, 1901. WHT to Elihu Root, November 17, 1901, Root Papers, Box 164. Taft seemed to delight in explaining his condition in grisly detail to relatives and others. See, for example, WHT to CPT, November 8, 1901. 45 WHT to Horace Taft, January 28, 1902; Anthony, Nellie Taft, pp. 163-64. 44

54

Richard G. Frederick

notables. Taft took the opportunity to advance his program in the Philippines, while renewing old acquaintances in the capital. He also found time to go to Philadelphia, where he received an honorary doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania. In the middle of these events, he had another operation to repair the damage caused by his abscess, and spent much of March recovering at the home of his brother Charles in Cincinnati. By April, he could finally announce that the ―cure seems to be complete,‖ although he had still not regained his full measure of strength.46 The most significant result of the Washington sojourn in early 1902 may have been the decision jointly reached by Taft, Roosevelt, and Root that Taft should journey back to the Philippines by way of Europe, so that he might personally visit the Vatican and negotiate the sale of the friars‘ lands in the Philippines. This had been a much-discussed matter since Taft‘s appointment. Earlier, Root had thought that a competent lawyer familiar with the situation should be employed to deal with the matter. Taft had offered the opinion that the land probably could not be purchased for less than ten million dollars, which was a fair estimate of the value, but perhaps it could be had for a lumpsum payment of $7.5 million in gold. He thought that either Commissioner Wright or Judge James F. Smith of the Philippine Supreme Court might be adequate for the job. Now, however, Taft was on his way back to the Islands and could proceed to the east rather than the Pacific and undertake the mission himself. After all, who was more versed in the affairs of the Philippines?47 Taft set out in May. Nellie was supposed to accompany him, but Robert fell ill a few days before the ship sailed, so she followed later with the children. Taft‘s mother made the trip with him instead, and evidently enjoyed the trip enormously. Judge Smith and Major John Biddle Porter would accompany Taft as members of a special mission to the Vatican, with which the United States had no official diplomatic relations. Bishop Thomas O‘Gorman of Sioux Falls would also make the trip separately, meeting the Taft group in Naples for the trip to Rome the first week in June. The mission met with mixed results. The meeting with Pope Leo XIII on June 5 went very well, according to Taft, who found the Pontiff humorous and unusually vigorous for a man in his 90s. After an exchange of gifts (the Pope 46

WHT to Horace Taft, April 20, 1902. Letters to other family members, including his mother and brother Charlie, detail his activities in Washington and elsewhere from January through March. 47 Elihu Root to WHT, September 5, 1901 and excerpts from Taft‘s reply, October 14, 1901, in Root Papers, Box 164. Cf. John T. Farrell, ―Background of the 1902 Taft Mission to Rome. I & II.‖ Catholic Historical Review 36 (April 1950): 1-32; 37 (April 1951): 1-22.

Governing the Philippines

55

got a set of Theodore Roosevelt‘s books), Taft made a prepared statement setting out the American position. The Pope‘s response was extremely positive towards the United States and its activities in the Philippines. ―Nothing was wanting in the way of superlative assurance of his good will and his anxiety to please us,‖ Taft reported. He also believed that the United States position was so advantageous to all parties concerned that any opposition to it would be overwhelmed.48 No matter how receptive the Pope may have seemed to the United States representatives, there were two prickly questions to resolve in relation to the Philippines, and the resolution would not come quickly. The first matter was the purchase of the lands of the Spanish orders. This was a straightforward business deal, which could be facilitated by involving the Church in Rome. The second matter was not so easily resolved. This was the question of whether members of the four Spanish monastic orders should be allowed to return to their parishes in the Philippines. In his statement to the Pope, Taft opined that they would not be welcomed back by the people, and such a return would ―seriously disturb the peace and order of the islands.‖ On the other hand, any large-scale withdrawal would be tantamount to an admission of gross wrongdoing on the part of the orders. In addition, the Vatican would be reluctant to allow outside political pressures to dictate Church appointments of clergy. These issues were addressed in a communication from the Vatican two weeks after the meeting with Pope Leo. The Pope had appointed a commission of Cardinals, which Taft thought had over-representation from the Spanish religious orders. The Cardinals‘ response was to the effect that the Vatican could not agree to the withdrawal of the friars from the Philippines. Taft labeled the reply ―a great disappointment and surprise‖ and felt it was not in the interest of the Catholic Church or the people of the Philippines. Feeling that his mission to Rome had been essentially a failure, Taft had another pleasant audience with the Pope, then returned to the Philippines by way of the Suez Canal.49 He enjoyed the trip back, although his family stayed behind for a vacation in the Alps while he returned to work. In Manila, he was met unexpectedly with a grand reception to welcome him back to his post. After making a 48

WHT to CPT, June 10, 1902; WHT to Horace Taft, June 10, 1902. A copy of Taft‘s statement to the pope is enclosed in the latter. 49 WHT to Elihu Root, July 22, 1902, Root Papers, Box 164; WHT to Aunt Delia Torrey, July 27, 1902.

56

Richard G. Frederick

speech, he stood and shook hands for four hours, finding the event ―very gratifying.‖50 The Filipinos were happy about his return, but part of their enthusiasm was for his efforts to remove the unpopular friars. And his Rome adventure was not the failure he had perceived. The following January, Pope Leo issued an encyclical on the Philippines, reorganizing the Church there. He created new dioceses, all under the authority of the new Archbishop of Manila, made provisions for the remaining Spanish bishops to resign, and encouraged the training of native Filipinos for the priesthood. He also appointed as Apostolic Delegate Giovanni Guidi, a man friendly to Taft and American interests in the islands. By the end of 1903, a settlement was reached on the friars‘ lands, calling for a payment of $7.2 million for 410,000 acres, about $3.5 million less than the original asking price.51 Just as Taft was settling back into his Governor‘s role, he received the opportunity to fulfill an ambition he had held for most of his adult life. President Roosevelt wrote in the middle of October, 1902 that an opening was about to occur on the Supreme Court, and he intended to appoint Taft, ―always providing that you feel that you wish a judicial career.‖ In reality, Taft wanted nothing more, but he turned down the offer. He sent Roosevelt a cable stating that the ―gravity of the situation‖ necessitated his staying. A few days later, he sent a lengthy description of the problems that beset the islands, including a religious schism led by a local priest against the Catholic Church. ―One problem about dealing with a religious movement is . . . that it is ‗loaded at both ends‘ and one has to take it up with the greatest care,‖ he wrote. To Taft, this meant not changing the government at the present time.52 Roosevelt pressed the offer, assuring Taft that he could stay in the Philippines until the following August, when the new Supreme Court session opened, but Taft was adamant in his refusal. Taft‘s devotion to duty was nowhere more evident than in turning down this appointment. There were serious and continuing problems in the Philippines. Because of the positive impression he had made on many of the locals, and because of his immersion in the area‘s conditions over the past years, there probably was no other individual who could have functioned so effectively as a colonial administrator in that particular place. In the year after his return from Rome, he was largely successful in dealing with the effects of 50

Mrs. WHT, Recollections, pp. 251-53; WHT to Elihu Root, August 25, 1902, Root Papers, Box 164. 51 Reuter, Catholic Influence, pp. 152-56. 52 TR to WHT, October 18, 1902; WHT to TR, October 27, 1902 (cable) and November 9, 1902.

Governing the Philippines

57

a cholera epidemic, a rice shortage, an unstable currency, and an outbreak of rinderpest, which killed the majority of carabao, the only draft and farm animals of the islands.53 Judging from what he wrote to family and friends, Taft was happy with his position as Governor of the Philippines. The challenges were great, but he seemed to delight in taking on daunting tasks. He received much praise from those, like Root and Roosevelt, whose opinions he respected. Nellie had settled in to her role as a sort of queen of Malacanan Palace. The Tafts might have stayed on for a few more years, until the government, educational system, and physical structure of the Philippines had all been built. But less than a month after Taft‘s final refusal of the Supreme Court appointment, there was already newspaper speculation about Taft‘s return to the States. A month after that, he would receive President Roosevelt‘s offer of another position. By the end of the year, he would sail back to the States. Such were the vicissitudes of public life and politics.

53

Mrs. WHT, Recollections, chap. 12.

Chapter 4

SECRETARY OF WAR In the middle of February, 1903, just a month after Taft had made clear his desire – and duty – to remain in the Philippines, he received an unsettling note from his brother Charlie. There was newspaper speculation in Cincinnati that Will would be traveling to Washington to join the Roosevelt cabinet as Secretary of War, since Elihu Root was shortly to retire. ―You see they do not give you any rest,‖ his brother wrote, ―they move you from one office to another without any consultation.‖1 The official note came from the President a few days later. He was certain that Root‘s leaving would be a ―calamity,‖ but one which would be mitigated by Taft taking over his position. He expressed the belief that he could persuade Root to stay until the end of the year, and urged Taft to accept, reminding him that he would essentially control American policy in the Philippines as head of the War Department. He also counseled Taft to keep the information a secret for the moment.2 Naturally, this did not apply to the Taft family, and a flurry of correspondence ensued, with advice coming from all directions. Family members would be supportive and play a large role in influencing Taft to take the job. Taft expressed his concerns to President Roosevelt and members of his family. He certainly was uncomfortable with the notion of leaving the job in the Philippines only partly finished, citing such matters as the criminal codes, internal revenue legislation, districting for the legislative assembly, and final 1 2

CPT to WHT, February 11, 1903. TR to WHT, February 14, 1903.

60

Richard G. Frederick

settlement of the friars‘ land as tasks still at hand. There was also the fact that he had no knowledge of Army matters and little interest in the politics associated with a Cabinet-level position. Finally, there was the mundane matter of salary. He pointed to the expenses involved in living and entertaining in Washington, which would have to be covered only by the $8,000 he would make in the office.3 The President was sympathetic to Taft‘s concerns about finances. The way he and Mrs. Roosevelt handled things, he told Taft, was through his wife‘s ―air of gracious and dignified simplicity‖ in dealing with the official life of the White House. This meant simple economies like not serving champagne at dinners, ―entertaining at Sunday evening high tea,‖ and not taking the White House servants to their home at Oyster Bay. ―We have two maids and live as any family of gentle-folk of small means should live,‖ Roosevelt wrote. Evidently Mrs. Taft was not overly impressed with this advice. ―You should see Nellie‘s lip curl at the suggestion of Sunday high teas and dinner parties without champagne,‖ Taft told a friend.4 Taft did, of course, accept the Cabinet offer. The financial concerns were allayed by Charles, who offered his usual generous support – in this case, $6,000 a year, with the promise of more if necessary. Taft‘s health was also a concern which contributed to the decision, since he had been battling amoebic dysentery since early in 1903, a matter which concerned Charles and other family members. Taft also asserted that he could assist in matters of importance to the Philippines from his position in Washington, particularly in light of upcoming hearings in Congress on tariff reductions. Thus, while he initially accepted the post in May with a plan to leave Manila the following April, he would ultimately set sail in December to arrive in Washington by February 1.5 Before leaving the Philippines, there was plenty of work to be finished and, inevitably, one last banquet. Nellie decided that the setting of the palace on the river was perfect for a Venetian Carnival, at which all revelers would arrive in costume and by boat. Nellie‘s costume would be ―a Venetian lady of romance days.‖ Will‘s outfit was more difficult to conjure. Nellie ultimately settled on the Doge of Venice. Will wrote Charlie that the problem was to produce a robe of sufficient size to ―conceal my nether extremities as to make it unnecessary for me to dye my nether undergarments to a proper colour, for 3

WHT to TR, April 3, 1903; WHT to Elihu Root, April 3, 1903, Root Papers, Box 165A. TR to WHT, June 9, 1903; Anthony, Nellie Taft, p. 174. 5 CPT to WHT, April 17 (telegram) and May 8, 1903; WHT to Horace Taft, October 26, 1903. 4

Secretary of War

61

the entire Orient cannot produce tights of a sufficient size.‖ In a published photograph of the event, Taft sits next to his petite and prettily-costumed wife, wearing a thick beard, enveloped in voluminous folds of cloth, and looking hugely magisterial. The party was a great success, though bittersweet, since the Tafts were saying goodbye to the many friends they had made in the Philippines.6 Taft‘s trip back to the United States was not uneventful. Since his appointment to head the War Department was announced before he left for home, Japanese officials thought it only proper to recognize him as he passed through their country. Accordingly, when his ship docked at Nagasaki, he and Nellie were met with a special train and conducted on a whirlwind tour with banquets and special audiences all along the way. Naturally, since they were entertaining a military man (or so they thought), they sought to impress him with all sorts of military displays and conversations about weaponry and all things martial. This was a country on the eve of war with Russia, and military matters were foremost among Japan‘s leaders. Taft was somewhat flabbergasted by all this, of course. He was particularly appalled while meeting with the former Military Governor of Formosa, who suggested that his experience had been similar to Taft‘s while engaged with the Filipino insurrection. ―We had to kill a good many thousands of those people before they would be good,‖ he told Taft. ―But then, of course, you understand,--you know,--you know.‖ Taft‘s assertion that he had not personally killed or ordered the killing of any Filipinos was met with some skepticism.7 When the Tafts arrived in California, Will went east by himself. Nellie stayed behind with the younger children for a lengthy visit with her in-laws in Santa Barbara. Bob had sailed home a few months earlier to begin his studies with Horace at the Taft School in Watertown, Connecticut. Will went to Washington by himself, much as he had fourteen years earlier when he arrived to begin his duties as Solicitor General. He settled in rooms at the Arlington Hotel and began an earnest study of the work done recently by the War Department, feeling as he had years earlier, that he was not sufficiently prepared for the job at hand. There was a huge difference, however, between this and the earlier time. The 1904 version of Will Taft was a man with considerable administrative experience who was, as a result of his work in the Philippines, a highly6 7

Mrs. WHT, Recollections, pp. 270-73. (Photo is between pp. 270-71). Ibid., pp. 274-76.

62

Richard G. Frederick

regarded national figure. Nor did he find himself alone and friendless in the nation‘s capital. In addition to a few friends from his earlier residence, there was now a whole new social group, consisting of the President‘s official family, notably other Cabinet members. There would be dinners at the White House with President Roosevelt himself. Taft‘s relationship with Roosevelt was interesting enough to be the subject of two book-length studies.8 The two met during the 1890s when Taft was Solicitor General and Roosevelt was a Civil Service Commissioner. They lived not far from each other during this time, and often walked to work together. Taft moved back to Cincinnati too soon for the friendship to blossom fully at this time, however. Upon becoming President, Roosevelt made clear, mainly through Elihu Root, his delight over Taft‘s performance in the Philippines. He also made clear that he had bigger things in mind for Taft, including the offer of the Supreme Court bench. For his part, Taft wrote warmly to Roosevelt. He assured the President of his loyalty and friendship, which he demonstrated continuously in the Philippines, though he occasionally joked privately to his family about the President‘s reputation for intemperate behavior. There was no reason for doubting that the two would get along famously, and they did. As far as Taft‘s preparedness for the position of Secretary of War was concerned, he need not have worried at all. He didn‘t have to know much about the day-to-day affairs of the department, because he wouldn‘t be dealing much with them. Back when the position was first offered by Roosevelt, Taft‘s brother Harry (more formally, Henry), by now a prominent New York City attorney, had met with T.R. and Elihu Root in Washington to discuss the matter. Harry reported to his brother that Roosevelt ―told me that he expected that you would be the strong man of the Cabinet and he should lean upon your counsel and advice as he had upon that of Root.‖9 This early prediction became a reality in the years ahead, as Taft‘s role in the Roosevelt administration brought him to the forefront in American politics. Taft was destined to figure prominently not only in the Cabinet but also in general affairs of state. One of the early concerns in Taft‘s tenure in the Cabinet was the matter of getting the President reelected. After some speculation early in 1904 that pro8

William Manners, TR and Will: A Friendship That Split the Republican Party (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1969) and David Burton, Taft, Roosevelt, and the Limits of Friendship (Madison, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005). 9 Henry W. Taft to WHT, June 16, 1903.

Secretary of War

63

business elements in the Republican party would block Roosevelt‘s nomination, he was handily selected at the party‘s convention in June. Charles Fairbanks, a wealthy Senator from Indiana, was chosen for the vicepresidential slot, although Taft told his brother Charles that there had been some interest in nominating him for the position. Taft assured his brother that he had no interest in running.10 He would, however, be actively involved in the campaign, as were other members of the Cabinet. For their part, the Democrats ―entered 1904 without either a strong candidate or a compelling issue.‖11 They settled on New York state judge Alton B. Parker, a ―safe‖ candidate whose conservative stance on most issues would contrast sharply with the large wing of his own party led by two-time Presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan. Taft derided Parker‘s colorless style, labeling his acceptance speech ―a distinct wet blanket.‖ He was able to report in August that the President seemed ―much more cheerful than he was,‖ owing to Parker‘s poor showing.12 But no candidate could be taken lightly, given the close division between the major parties. Although he abhorred political speaking, Taft was a major campaigner for Roosevelt. He spoke largely on foreign affairs, including the wisdom of policies responsible for the present building of the Panama Canal. He combined an August campaign trip to New England with a visit to his mother and Aunt Delia. After a sojourn with family members at Murray Bay, Quebec, where the Tafts had vacationed since 1892, he was back on the campaign trail during the fall. He told the President his October schedule included engagements in Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, and Baltimore. He would take a week to do War Department business, ―and then I shall be at liberty again and ready to respond to the call of the National Committee.‖13 Taft certainly made a contribution, but the enormity of Roosevelt‘s victory (56.4% of the popular vote to Parker‘s 37.6%) demonstrated his widespread personal appeal to the voters. When Taft was in Washington, he and Nellie spent few quiet evenings in their home at 1603 K Street. It was a spacious residence, but small by Malacanan Palace standards, necessitating a certain adjustment in furnishings brought home from the Far East. When they were not entertaining, they were 10

WHT to CPT, June 23, 1904. Lewis L. Gould, Reform and Regulation: American Politics from Roosevelt to Wilson (2nd.ed., New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986), p. 60. 12 WHT to CPT, August 20, 1904. 13 WHT to Theodore Roosevelt, September 14, 1904. 11

64

Richard G. Frederick

dining out. The Tafts met people with epicurean and simple tastes in Washington, but people who were interesting, for one reason or another. Nellie opined that their acquaintances during these years ―contributed much to the sum total of what the world seemed to have in store for us.‖14 Mrs. Taft‘s statement about life in Washington failed to account for what would become the focus of her husband‘s role in the Roosevelt Cabinet. Taft would not only fill in for the President when he was out of town, but he would also serve briefly as Acting Secretary of State and as a kind of roving ambassador for the administration. For example, Taft was the government representative who was dispatched to witness the opening of the St. Louis World‘s Fair in the summer of 1904, commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Lewis and Clark expedition. (He was much taken with the event and wrote Charles that ―It is the greatest thing on earth and well worth a visit of considerable time.‖15) Taft‘s big trip in 1904 took him well beyond St. Louis. Since the winning of Panamanian independence the year before, the Roosevelt administration had assumed a large role in the affairs of that country, created out of revolution against Colombia with the collusion of the United States. The United States was given sovereignty over the Canal Zone, a ten-mile corridor through the country where the Panama Canal would be constructed. The authority was given to the President of the United States, who chose to delegate it to the War Department. Army and Navy officials would head a seven-man Isthmian Canal Commission composed mainly of engineers, who would govern the area and oversee work on the Canal.16 This arrangement brought about several problems. One was simply a matter of logistics. How effectively could such a commission provide government, and how could any efficient arrangement include the Secretary of War? There were disputes among the engineers about the way to proceed in building the canal. After all, this was the largest undertaking of its kind in world history. Finally, there was concern from the Panamanian government of Dr. Manuel Amador about the unlimited nature of U.S. sovereignty in the Canal Zone. Since the United States had already acted to effect change in the area, was Panama safe from encroachment? 14

Mrs. WHT, Recollections, p. 281. Cf. Ross, American Family, pp. 160-62. WHT to CPT, August 20, 1904. 16 Edmund Morris, Theodore Rex (New York: Random House, 2001), ch.18-20; David McCullough, The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870-1914 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1977), chap. 13. 15

Secretary of War

65

Roosevelt decided to send Taft on a mission to Panama in November of 1904. In his letter of instructions, the President mainly addressed the concern of the Panamanians, telling Taft to assure Amador ―that it is not the purpose of the United States to take advantage of the rights conferred upon it by the [HayBunau-Varilla] treaty to interfere with the welfare and prosperity of the State of Panama, or of the cities of Colon and Panama.‖17 Taft would be accompanied on the trip by, among others, the President of the Canal Commission, Rear Admiral John G. Walker, and William Nelson Cromwell, the wealthy corporate attorney who served as American Counsel to Panama. Also along was Mrs. Taft, who was excited to witness firsthand ―the beginning of what I knew was to be the greatest enterprise ever undertaken by the United States.‖18 After a stopover in New Orleans, the party boarded the cruiser Columbia for the trip to Colon. A private train took the group to Panama City, where Taft had the first of a series of meetings with President Amador. The Tafts stayed with Chief Engineer John F. Wallace and his wife. The two men established a good relationship, bolstered by Wallace‘s forethought in having one of his dining room chairs specially braced and bolted for the Secretary. Ten days of formal dining, dances, and sightseeing were interspersed with meetings with Panamanian officials and Americans involved in the project. In the end, Taft accomplished what he sent out to do. In addition to reassuring the Panamanians that the United States had no designs on their sovereignty, Taft had a number of specific objectives on this trip. One matter of concern was the financial stability of Panama. Taft worked out details of an ad valorem tariff arrangement, with free trade between Panama and the Canal Zone. He also secured adjustment of Panama‘s postal rates. In addition, he saw to it that public health matters in Colon and Panama would be handled by the United States. His comprehensive report to President Roosevelt in December made clear that he had been thorough in negotiating with the Panamanians and settled the important issues that concerned the United States. Now it was simply a matter of building a canal.19 It was never simple, of course. In the months that followed his visit, Taft recommended the reorganization of the Canal Commission, reducing the 17

Theodore Roosevelt to WHT, October 13, 1904. Philippe Bunau-Varilla was Panama‘s representative to Washington, D.C. The treaty guaranteed the independence of Panama in exchange for the U.S. right to build the Panama Canal and the U.S. received sovereign rights over the Canal Zone. 18 Mrs. WHT, Recollections, p. 283. 19 WHT to Theodore Roosevelt, December 19, 1904.

66

Richard G. Frederick

membership from seven to three. This was a plan that seems to have originated with John Wallace, who became a regular correspondent with Taft in early 1905. Wallace did not have long to bask in Taft‘s favor, however. In June 1905, the two men met in New York City, where Wallace threatened to resign and accept a higher-paying position. Taft reportedly became enraged and spent a full half-hour berating Wallace for shirking his responsibility to his country. In spite of Wallace‘s offer to reconsider his course, Taft recommended that the President immediately remove him from his position. Roosevelt complied. Taft, usually portrayed in the press at this time as an affable genial giant, was always capable of harsh action when he felt the situation warranted it.20 Taft proved fallible in some of the recommendations he made about the canal project. For awhile, he was a strong supporter of a sea-level canal, which Wallace was pushing, versus a canal with locks, which was ultimately built. In the fight over the creation of Dr. William Gorgas‘s Sanitary Department, Taft initially backed the group trying to force Gorgas out. Roosevelt had other advice on this issue, however, and Gorgas stayed to wipe out the yellow fever that had been an epidemic in Panama since work on the canal first began.21 On other matters, Taft was well-informed and made enlightened decisions. His selections of John Stevens and Colonel George W. Goethals as engineers could not have been better. In his positions as Secretary of War and as President of the United States, Taft made great contributions to the massive canal-building project. He corresponded with the major American movers and shakers on the project and with not a few leading Panamanians. But his management style was not just to sit back and view the situation from afar. Over the course of seven years, beginning in 1904, he made seven trips to Panama. This was a hands-on approach to what Taft and Roosevelt considered one of the most important U.S. affairs of the early 20th Century. Internationalism was one of the keys to the Roosevelt Presidency. American interests were widespread and certainly not restricted to Latin America. T.R.‘s roving Secretary of War would be traveling much more widely than the Caribbean, and the first big trip took place in 1905. On these trips, Taft really acted more like a roving Secretary of State. He had some practice at the real thing for a few weeks early in 1905, filling in for the ill John Hay. (Hay would die that summer and be replaced by Elihu Root.) By all accounts, Taft acquitted himself very well. While the President was traveling

20 21

McCullough, Path Between the Seas, pp. 455-58. Ibid., chap. 17.

Secretary of War

67

in the Western states and Taft was ―sitting on the lid‖ in Washington, T.R. informed Taft that he was ―handling everything just right.‖22 One nation that particularly concerned U.S. policymakers in the spring of 1905 was Japan. With a victorious war against Russia just finished, Japan seemed poised for expansion in the Far East, possibly in the direction of the Philippines. There was also disquieting news from the Philippines about the lack of progress in various ways leading to dissension among the Filipinos. The Secretary of War was in charge of Philippine affairs, as had been the case when Root was Secretary and Taft was Governor. The President decided that Taft should visit the area in the summer of 1905 and ascertain what conditions really prevailed. On the way, he could stop in Japan and affirm U.S. friendship. When Taft sailed aboard the steamer Manchuria in July, the official party consisted of fifty-four members, including seven Senators and twenty-three Congressmen. Others would join along the way, bringing the number to eighty-three. Yet all these dignitaries combined did not attract the attention given to one slim twenty-one year-old woman. Alice Roosevelt, the President‘s oldest child was already the darling of the Washington press corps. When she set out to accompany ―Uncle Will‖ on a trip which also included the attentive eligible bachelor, Congressman Nicholas Longworth, the press had a field day. Taft‘s brother Horace joked about the prospect when the announcement of Alice‘s inclusion was made in March. ―I should think that she would cause more excitement and trouble than half a dozen Filipino tribes,‖ he wrote Will.23 For the most part, the trip went well for Taft and the rest of the party. With so much press attention diverted to Alice, Taft could rest on the voyage and conduct his business wherever the junket landed. On the voyage across, he walked four miles daily around the decks, something he had done on earlier Pacific trips. He socialized by playing cards and dancing. Away from the responsibilities of Washington and the Cabinet, he was able to relax. By Alice‘s account, he was unfailingly amiable throughout the trip. Years later, she remembered that ―He was always beaming, genial, and friendly, through all his official duties, and the task of keeping harmony among his varied and

22 23

Quoted in Duffy, William Howard Taft, p. 172. Horace Taft to WHT, March 7, 1905. Social aspects of the trip are covered in Ross, American Family, pp. 167-72 and James Brough, Princess Alice: A Biography of Alice Roosevelt Longworth (Boston: Little, Brown, 1975), pp. 169-80.

68

Richard G. Frederick

somewhat temperamental army of trippers.‖24 Alice and Longworth, a Cincinnatian whose family was well known to the Tafts, were ―informally‖ engaged on the trip and would marry in a huge social event at the White House the following year. Taft‘s business began when the Manchuria arrived in Japan. Taft had a lengthy meeting on July 27 with Japan‘s Prime Minister, Taro Katsura, at the request of the Japanese government. In a long cablegram to new Secretary of State Elihu Root, he explained the outcome of the meeting, known to diplomatic historians as the ―Taft-Katsura Agreement.‖ While various later accounts characterized the agreement as a rather cynical quid pro quo whereby the Japanese would agree to stay out of the Philippines if the United States allowed Japan free rein in Korea, the Taft cablegram presents rather a different view.25 The first matter discussed was the Philippines. Taft averred his certainty that Japan had no aggressive designs on the islands. In his opinion, the Japanese attitude mirrored the American outlook which he had adhered to when he was the colonial governor. This was ―to have the Islands governed by a strong and friendly nation like the United States, and not to have them placed either under the misrule of the natives, yet unfit for self-government, or in the hands of some unfriendly European power.‖ Katsura then turned to the notion of an alliance among Japan, the United States, and Great Britain. The three powers should act in harmony to maintain peace in the Far East, he stated, probably thinking of the future threats of Germany and Russia in the area. While the Japanese minister understood that such a formal arrangement might be politically impossible for Roosevelt, he suggested (in Taft‘s words) a ―good understanding or an alliance in practice if not in name.‖ Taft indicated that his country was fully in accord with the peace policies of Japan and Great Britain and would support such policies without any formal agreements. (A strong sense of ―Trust Us‖ seems to have permeated the air from both sides.) The last part of the discussion touched on the question of Korean sovereignty. Taft gave as his opinion the viewpoint to which the President would also adhere—that Japanese control of Korea would bring stability to the region. As Taft put it in his report, ―the establishment by Japanese troops of a 24

Alice Roosevelt Longworth, Crowded Hours: Reminiscences (New York: Charles Scribner‘s Sons, 1933), p. 69. 25 Raymond A. Esthus, ―The Taft-Katsura Agreement—Reality or Myth?‖ Journal of Modern History 31 (March 1959): 46-51; Minger, William Howard Taft, chap. 6.

Secretary of War

69

suzerainty over Korea to the extent of requiring that Korea enter into no foreign treaties without the consent of Japan was the logical result of the present war and would directly contribute to permanent peace in the East.‖26 Perhaps Taft realized that this was the same situation that prevailed between the United States and Cuba, as a result of the Platt Amendment, and reasoned that what was good for stability in the Caribbean was good for stability in East Asia. Although Taft expressed misgivings to both Root and Roosevelt about having interfered in State Department matters, the President was quick to reassure him. He telegraphed Taft in no uncertain terms: ―Your conversation with Count Katsura absolutely correct in every respect,‖ and added that Taft should tell Katsura that he stood behind Taft‘s statements.27 Relieved, the Secretary could enjoy further banquets and gatherings for the Americans. He even enjoyed a private meeting with the Japanese Emporer. Then it was on to the Philippines, where Taft was greeted enthusiastically. The party spent some weeks in the islands, where time was ―filled with the usual receptions, banquets and oratorical orgies.‖ Taft made a number of addresses to various groups, including an emotional greeting at Malacanan Palace in early August. His most important speech addressed his love for the Filipino people and the sincere interest for their well-being on the part of the United States. However, he pointed out, the time for self-government and independence had not yet arrived. By all accounts, Taft‘s reassurances, delivered in public and private meetings, were received positively by the general Filipino populace.28 Taft was pleased with the outcome of the trip. As he wrote his mother, ―It was a success and it was attended with no bad fortune in either illness or accident. This is something to brag of in a trip of 25,000 miles, of 80 people and lasting 92 days.‖ Others noted and admired Taft‘s propensity to work diligently and produce positive results. One was the President‘s friend, the Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. When Roosevelt was pondering Hay‘s replacement in the State Department, Lodge noted that, while Taft would be ―wholly admirable‖ for the position, he thought it unwise to remove him from the ―great work he now has‖ in Panama and the Philippines. A few 26

WHT to Elihu Root (Cablegram), July 29, 1905, copy in Philander Knox Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Cont. 2. 27 WHT to Roosevelt, July 31, 1905; Roosevelt to WHT, July 31, 1905. 28 Pringle, Taft, I: 295. For a good exposition of Taft‘s views on the Philippines at this time, see WHT, ―The Philippines,‖ National Geographic Magazine 16 (August 1905): 361-75.

70

Richard G. Frederick

weeks earlier, Roosevelt had written of Taft that ―He has been a very real comfort and aid to me. Long may he stay here!‖29 Taft‘s one foray into domestic politics in 1905 had mixed results. In October he gave a speech in support of Ohio Governor Myron T. Herrick, who had been attacked by a reform element for his ties to Cincinnati Republican boss George Cox. Taft defended Herrick‘s honesty while attacking the Cox machine. He avowed that, if he was still voting in Cincinnati, he would support Herrick and the state ticket and vote against the municipal slate of Republicans. Although Taft received kudos from many Ohio politicians and newspapers, voters did not heed his message, defeating Herrick and electing the Cox candidates in the November election.30 Taft‘s gravest concern in the affair was his relationship with his brother Charles. In a close-knit family that provided constant expressions of love and support, Charles‘s relationship with Will was especially close. He continued to provide the significant financial support that allowed Will‘s family to live comfortably and travel on Will‘s limited salary. Will wrote to him more frequently than anyone else, with the exception of Nellie when they were separated. And big brother Charles seemed largely to fill the role of leading advisor to Will after Alphonso died. The problem with Will lambasting the Cox political machine was that Charles had ties to it, both through the TimesStar and his own brief foray into political office-holding. (He served a single term in the House of Representatives in the 54th Congress.) Will wrote him a heartfelt letter to reassure him that ―any pain you feel at the expressed difference of opinion between us finds a corresponding deep regret in my heart.‖31 The speech seemed to have no effect on the close relationship between the two men. At the prodding of family members, Will decided to address his weight problem in the winter of 1905-06. He paid $65 for a diet that had worked for his sister-in-law, Julia (Harry‘s wife). He joked that, since he wouldn‘t be able to eat anything while dining out, ―This will require me to prepare myself to fill in the long intervals with interesting conversation.‖ The diet at first produced the opposite result. He told Charles that his mother and Aunt Delia were concerned by his relative silence at a family dinner. ―It is possible that the 29

WHT to Louise Taft, October 4, 1905; Lodge to Roosevelt, July 2, 1905, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., Selections from the Correspondence of Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, 1884-1918 (2 Vols., New York: Charles Scribner‘s Sons, 1925), II:161. 30 Duffy, Taft, pp.176-77; Pringle, Taft, I: 268-69. 31 WHT to CPT, October 21, 1905.

Secretary of War

71

deprivation of everything that is good to eat does affect a man‘s bubbling appreciation of life at the table,‖ he explained.32 Taft exercised regularly along with the diet. In the fall and spring, he played rounds of golf. Over the winter, he rode his horse every day possible. He met Charles E. Barker, a young physical education instructor from Madison, Wisconsin, who established an exercise regimen for him to follow. Taft was attentive to both the diet and exercise, commenting on his weight almost daily in letters to family members. The plans worked wonders. In about four months, he went from over 320 pounds to 265. By the summer of 1906, he would weigh only 250, his lowest weight in years. Without a doubt, his health was improved. He no longer drowsed off after meals and his energy level was restored to normal. According to Charles Barker, a ―functional disease of the heart,‖ apparent in the fall, was no longer present.33 Taft was a healthy man. He was also determined to make some changes in the War Department. He saw the need for greater efficiency, but he realized that such a large bureaucracy was resistant to change. He particularly sought legislative reforms regarding the Army, but thought that the influence of 3,800 officers would probably be reactionary. On the whole, he planned a greater role for himself, with more details to come to him rather than the Chief of Staff. ―I have had so much outside work to do that I was entirely willing to turn the control all over to the Chief of Staff,‖ he wrote, ―but now I think I am about ready to take up matters in that Department.‖34 He was wrong in this assessment. Most of the matters he would be taking up in 1906 involved foreign affairs, except for one particularly nasty domestic matter involving African-American troops in Texas. Racial tensions ran high in Brownsville, Texas in the summer of 1906 when three companies of the Twenty-Fifth United States infantry (colored) were garrisoned there. After several ugly incidents between soldiers and white citizens, the troops‘ commander declared a curfew and locked the barracks at night. On August 13, a group of men fired rifles into dwellings and stores in Brownsville, killing one man and injuring a police officer. The locals swore the shootings were done by soldiers. But all the soldiers were present when the roster was called a few minutes after the shootings. The Army investigation 32

WHT to CPT, October 21 and December 3, 1905. Pringle, Taft I: 286-88; Charles E. Barker, With President Taft in the White House: Memories of William Howard Taft (Chicago: A. Kroch and Son, 1947), pp. 11-15. 34 WHT to CPT, December 3, 1905. 33

72

Richard G. Frederick

which followed was inconclusive. Local citizens presented evidence – an army cap and shells of the type used by the troops. All the soldiers remained steadfast, however, in their refusal to admit guilt or to point the finger at wrong-doers. President Roosevelt took matters into his own hands in early November, ordering the dismissal of all 167 soldiers, without honor and without the possibility of reenlistment.35 Although this was an Army matter and thus officially under the jurisdiction of the War Department, Taft was only marginally involved in it and in the fracas that ensued. He was vacationing with his family when the shooting took place. Later, Roosevelt was solely responsible for the dismissal order, although Taft would have to sign it and issue it from the War Department. He privately told Charles that he agreed with it, although he did not issue it.36 When the Senate launched an inquiry into the event, Taft came across evidence that impugned the testimony of the main eyewitness against the black soldiers. He sent it to the President and asked that it be transmitted to the Senate. However, a few months later he was working on a speech to explain the affair to ―a great many white people that don‘t understand the exact situation.‖37 The man who made himself the center of controversy over the Brownsville case was Joseph B. Foraker, Taft‘s one-time political ally. More recently, Foraker was more of a nemesis, having associated himself with the Cox political machine and, it was rumored, expressing interest in the Republican Presidential nomination in 1908. While he had a personal interest in embarrassing Taft politically, there was more to his actions in the Brownsville case – his genuine concern that an injustice had been done to the soldiers, primarily because of their race.38 His Senate investigation began in 1906 but it was an incident at a Gridiron Club dinner in January 1907, where both Foraker and Roosevelt made impassioned speeches that really brought the controversy into the open.39 Taft was present at the dinner, but not directly 35

Ann J. Lane, The Brownsville Affair: National Crisis and Black Reaction (Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1971), passim. 36 WHT to CPT, January 1, 1907. 37 WHT to Theodore Roosevelt, January 14 and July 7, 1907. 38 Foraker devotes a great deal of space to the incident in his autobiography. See Joseph Benson Foraker, Notes of a Busy Life (2 Vols., Cincinnati: Stewart & Kidd, 1916), II: chaps. 41-43. His wife also contributed her version in Julia B. Foraker, I Would Live It Again: Memories of a Vivid Life (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1932), chaps. xix-xx. 39 For various accounts of the Gridiron Dinner imbroglio, see Foraker, Notes of a Busy Life II: 249-57; Theodore Roosevelt to Albert J. Beveridge, January 27, 1907, Beveridge Papers,

Secretary of War

73

involved. This was his role in the entire controversy – a willing participant in the sense of giving his unfailing support to Theodore Roosevelt, even when T.R. was taking a course of action that Taft would not necessarily have pursued. Taft‘s loyalty in this incident was characteristic of his service as Secretary of War. In another bizarre turn of events in the interventionist Roosevelt administration, Taft became the Governor of Cuba in 1906. After Tomas Estrada Palma was elected under shady circumstances in 1906, the losing Liberal party in Cuba began calling for his ouster. An armed uprising against the President began by August of that year. While President Roosevelt was anxious to avoid an occurrence similar to that in the Philippines, where U.S. troops were committed for years, he nevertheless dispatched naval vessels with American troops to protect American interests in Cuba. In September he sent Taft and Assistant Secretary of State Robert Bacon to straighten out the situation.40 Taft had ambivalent feelings about the matter from the outset. In the first place, he thought that Secretary Root knew much more about the situation than he and felt it ―quite embarrassing‖ that he should act in an affair he knew so little about. He did not lack strong feelings about Cuba, though. He told his wife that ―Cuba is no more fitted for self-government than the Philippines and the proper solution of the present difficulties would be annexation if we consulted the interest of the Cuban people.‖ This course of action was politically impossible, Taft knew, but he predicted that it might happen in the future.41 He kept such feelings to himself, of course, in his dealings with the Cubans. Arriving in the country on September 19, he immediately met with leaders from both sides. His initial report indicated that the government controlled coastal areas, with the insurgent strength in the interior. While the latter group‘s leaders avowed their willingness to abide by Roosevelt‘s wishes, Taft was skeptical. He asked both groups for written demands and suggestions for a means of peacefully settling the dispute. In the meantime, an augmented Box 277; Arthur Dunn, Gridiron Nights (New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1915), pp. 178-93. 40 Ralph Eldin Minger, ―William H. Taft and the United States Intervention in Cuba in 1906,‖ Hispanic American Historical Review 41 (February 1961): 75-89; Christopher A. Abel, ―Controlling the Big Stick: Theodore Roosevelt and the Cuban Crisis of 1906,‖ Naval War College Review 40 (Summer 1987): 88-98. 41 WHT to Elihu Root, September 15, 1906, Root Papers, Box 166; Minger, ―WHT and United States Intervention,‖ p. 86.

74

Richard G. Frederick

naval fleet – six battleships, seven cruisers, a gunboat and two auxiliaries, with more than 8,000 marines and sailors – made preparations for landings, if necessary.42 Over the next week, Taft came to the conclusion that the Palma government was not tenable. The only way to keep him in power, Taft told Roosevelt, was by using American force. This would differ sharply with Cuban public opinion, since there had been such ―open and flagrant‖ fraud in the last election. Taft‘s initial solution was to persuade Palma and his cohorts to resign from office and hold new elections. Over the next few days, however, Taft vacillated in his recommendations. For one thing, he found that, while widespread election fraud had occurred, Palma himself was honest and probably unaware of the egregious deeds of his supporters. Taft also failed to turn up anyone else for the job. ―Palma is one of the very few men who are really honest and patriotic, in either of the parties‖ he wrote, adding that the rebel leaders tended to be ―irresponsible . . . lawless persons of no particular standing in times of peace.‖ Finally, Taft was concerned about the perceived legitimacy of the Cuban government, pointing out that Palma was a symbol of the continuity of the government established in Cuba by the United States in 1902.43 While meeting for the next few days with Palma and the Moderates, as well as the Liberal insurrectionists, Taft worked diligently to fashion some kind of an inclusive compromise government, with Palma remaining in the Presidency and about half of the fraudulently-elected Congress resigning and having their seats filled in a special election. Taft‘s hard work was torpedoed on the 25th, however, when Palma announced his intention to resign. The President, Vice-President, Cabinet, and all the Moderates in Congress would all leave office. At this point, Taft found no alternative to American intervention. He cabled Roosevelt: ―I think there is nothing to do but to issue a proclamation stating that as the only constituted government in the Island has abdicated, it is necessary for you, under the Platt amendment, to assume control of the Island and establish a provisional government and name some one as Governor, giving him such powers as may be necessary to preserve law and order, suppress insurrection and continue the ordinary administration of the government until a more permanent policy may be determined.‖ Taft suggested that he himself issue the proclamation in Roosevelt‘s name.44 42

WHT to Theodore Roosevelt, September 20, 1906; Abel, ―Controlling the Big Stick,‖ p. 96. WHT to Theodore Roosevelt, September 21 and 22, 1906. 44 WHT to Theodore Roosevelt, September 25, 1906. 43

Secretary of War

75

Roosevelt agreed with Taft‘s suggested course of action, and complimented him for the way he was handling the tricky situation. He cautioned him against the use of the word ―intervention,‖ and advised him to mention the landing of American sailors and marines ―on the grounds of conservation of American interests, emphasizing the temporary character of the landing, and the hope that our keeping sailors, marines or troops in the island will be but for a short time, until a permanent government has been formed.‖ 45 Three days later, after numerous drafts had passed between Havana and Oyster Bay, Taft issued a proclamation appointing himself Provisional Governor of Cuba, with a mission ―to restore order [and] protect life and property in the island of Cuba and keys adjacent thereto.‖ ―I ask all citizens and residents of Cuba to assist in the work of restoring order, tranquility and public confidence,‖ the new Provisional Governor declared publicly. Privately, he called upon the rebels to lay down their arms in order to avoid the prospect of martial law.46 Taft was Governor of Cuba for all of two weeks; on October 13, he would hand over the reins to Charles E. Magoon. It was agreed that Taft would retain the post until the rebels laid down their arms. Taft would grant amnesty to those who complied; those who did not would be declared bandits and hunted by the military. When Mr. Magoon arrived to take his post, he was accompanied on the ship by Taft‘s and Bacon‘s wives, who were invited down to sample the delights of Cuba. Being ―Queen‖ of Cuba in the President‘s Palace must have awakened fond memories of the Philippines for Nellie, even if her ―reign‖ lasted for only three days. The Tafts left aboard the battleship Louisiana just ahead of a severe tropical storm. Will could not have been happier. Just before leaving, he wrote his brother Horace that ―It will be a source of great delight to me to leave the Island, for my experience here has been largely a night mare.‖47 Taft could have been sailing home to a dream. Earlier in the year, President Roosevelt had again tendered an offer for an opening on the Supreme Court. The family, especially Nellie, opposed the appointment because it was already clear that Taft was the leading contender for the Republican Presidential nomination in the next election. Taft himself wrote 45

Theodore Roosevelt to WHT, September 26, 1906. The ―short time‖ that TR hoped for the occupation actually stretched to January 1909. 46 Seven different drafts of the proclamation, including the final, are in the Taft Papers, Series 4A, Reel 320; WHT to Theodore Roosevelt, September 29, 1906. 47 WHT to Horace Taft, October 11, 1906; Mrs. WHT, Recollections, pp. 294-301.

76

Richard G. Frederick

T.R. a long explanation of his refusal to take the seat at the time, even though his long-term ambition was to become Chief Justice. Not the looming Presidential race, but continued interest in the Philippines lay at the bottom of his decision to remain in the Cabinet, he told Roosevelt. He would much rather be on the Court than run for President, he wrote, but the timing was wrong. The only family member who thought the move might be a good one for Will was brother Charles, who thought the appointment would elevate him above petty politics. He could then step down from the court to run for President.48 Will would not adopt this strategy. 1907 brought more travel for the peripatetic Secretary of War. His major trip that year was partly diplomatic and partly the fulfillment of a promise he made when he left the Philippines. Taft had promised to return for the first meeting of the Philippine Assembly, one of the major steps to self-government in the Islands. That event would take place in October. Prior to the fall trip, Taft would travel to Panama for discussions on the canal project with Goethals and Gorgas, then swing around the countryside in the summer for what was essentially a political junket. A reporter from Hearst‘s anti-administration New York American questioned Taft‘s time spent on the road. Addressing the Auditor of the War Department, Henry W. Fischer wanted to know how many days Taft had been at his desk since his appointment, whether he drew his salary when he was away, and who paid for trips that were not strictly business. The President forwarded the inquiry to Taft with a note warning him to keep a strict accounting and pay personally ―for any trip which they can even assert to be political.‖49 The trip to be Philippines would be a hybrid one, since there was an official purpose for the visit to the Islands and to Japan, but Mrs. Taft and nine-year-old son Charlie would also accompany Taft on an ensuing threemonth 20,000 mile unofficial trip around the world, with stops in Russia, Berlin, and Paris. The Tafts met in Montana, at Yellowstone Park, where they vacationed for three days before setting off for Seattle, where they began their ocean voyage. Taft told his mother that his whirlwind travel through the west made him lose track of days of the week. He and Nellie ended up playing bridge on a Sunday evening, which he worried might be used against him by 48

WHT to Theodore Roosevelt, July 30, 1906 and to Horace Taft, July 30, 1906; CPT to WHT, March 10, 1906. Charles had a good year in 1906, his first year of ownership of the Chicago Cubs major league baseball team. He was excited about the team winning the National League championship; even though they lost the World Series, he expected many more championships. See CPT to WHT, October 18, 1906. 49 Roosevelt to WHT, September 12, 1907, with enclosure from Fischer dated September 5.

Secretary of War

77

the press and occasion an attack by the ―Sabbatarians.‖ He assured his devout mother that neither he nor his wife would have knowingly done such a thing.50 Diplomatically speaking, the Japanese part of the trip was the most important. Relations between the two countries were strained, partly because the Japanese felt they were given second-class treatment by the United States. Pursuant to this was a movement in the United States to exclude Japanese immigrants, and recent anti-Japanese riots in San Francisco. The Tafts were given a warm welcome in Japan and invited to stay in Shiba Palace in Tokyo as guests of the Emperor. Shortly after his arrival, he addressed the Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and talked about the need for diplomatic solutions between the two countries. He labeled the prospect of war between the United States and Japan ―a crime against modern civilization . . . as wicked as it would be insane.‖ He would happily report at the end of his Japanese sojourn that his hosts were very anxious to assure him of their lack of desire for war.51 Taft‘s meetings with several government officials were friendly, if not terribly productive. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Tadasu Hayashi, asked him about a report that the United States was considering the sale of the Philippines. Taft assured him that the U.S. had no such intention, but was bound to a protectorate leading to the ultimate independence of the Islands. Hayashi told Taft that Japan was not interested in purchasing the Islands, but there was concern that the U.S. would sell them to a European power. Immigration restriction was a major problem for the Japanese. The United States suggested a treaty of ―reciprocal exclusion‖ – the United States would exclude Japanese laborers from its borders and the Japanese could similarly exclude American laborers. The problem with this solution was obvious. U.S. laborers were not migrating to Japan. Taft received assurances that, while a treaty would be impolitic to the Japanese, they would voluntarily limit immigration to the United States. Taft thought that this ―gentlemen‘s agreement‖ would maintain the status quo; he advised Roosevelt to alert the California Congressmen to the ―necessity for stopping agitation‖ for immigration restriction.52 After a stopover at Shanghai, where the Tafts were feted by Chinese merchants and Taft spoke in favor of the Open Door, the party proceeded to 50

WHT to Louise Taft, September 4, 1907. Quoted in Minger, WHT and United States Foreign Policy, p. 156. For coverage of the Taft visit, see also Charles E. Neu, An Uncertain Friendship: Theodore Roosevelt and Japan, 1906-1909 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967), chap. vi; WHT to CPT, October 10, 1907. 52 WHT to Roosevelt, October 4, 1907. 51

78

Richard G. Frederick

the Philippines. He must have pondered the message he wanted to give on the way, in the light of a recent communication from the President. Taft had always thought that Philippine independence was some time off. In March, he had written of the necessity of American ―experiments‖ with gradual authority given to the Filipinos. But even with expert guidance in self-government, he had written, ―I don‘t think it possible that the United States can safely turn over the government of the Islands completely to the people of the Islands short of two generations.‖53 With this pessimistic outlook, it must have come as a shock to Taft when Roosevelt sent him a note on the eve of his departure to the effect that the Philippines could not be fortified as needed, due to lack of interest and money from Congress. This made the Islands the United States‘ ―heel of Achilles‖ in dealing with Japan. Therefore, Roosevelt proposed, ―in some way and with some phraseology that you think wise you should state to them that if they handle themselves wisely in their legislative assembly we shall at the earliest possible moment give them a nearly complete independence.‖54 Taft‘s response to Roosevelt was to make no such promise. He told the President as much before he left, and his speeches in the Philippines mirrored his view rather than that of the President. He noted that he would make a report when he returned, and thought that government surplus moneys might be available for funding fortifications in the Islands.55 He expected that his message of gradualism would be met with a chilly response, especially in Manila, where the ―Independentistas‖ were strongest, but he was pleasantly surprised at the warmth of greetings he received from people of all classes. He attributed this to their belief that his presence was the reason the Assembly was meeting. And, as he noted with just a hint of immodesty, ―The truth is that I am responsible for it so that perhaps the gratitude they manifest is not really misplaced.‖56 Mrs. Taft and Charlie were also well received. The Tafts visited their old residence at Malacanan Palace, met with old acquaintances, and attended a variety of social events. Taft noted roads and other physical changes with great satisfaction. He found the army in good shape, though he did not trust the judgment of the leader, Leonard Wood, whose earlier experience in Cuba was 53

WHT to Horace White, March 22, 1907, Andrew Carnegie Papers, Container 140. Roosevelt to WHT, August 21, 1907. T.R. probably copied in Elihu Root, since there is a copy of the letter in his papers as well (Box 166). 55 WHT to Roosevelt, August 31, 1907. 56 WHT to CPT, October 23, 1907; WHT to Theodore Roosevelt, September 11, 1907. 54

Secretary of War

79

controlling the civil government, much like MacArthur‘s role in the Philippines before Taft. The whole experience was so positive that Taft decided to spend an additional week in the Islands before going on.57 The rest of the trip was an adventure, but not an official mission. When Taft announced his intention of returning home via a trip through Russia and Europe, Secretary Root was alarmed that a trip to Germany would be considered a slight in France and England if stops were not made there as well. Root seemed to manifest concern that Taft could muddle a delicate diplomatic balance in dealing with Europe. After a flurry of correspondence and advice from all sides, the Tafts would travel to Russia, from Siberia to Moscow, then continue on to Berlin, stopping only long enough to visit the American embassy, then head directly for the port of Hamburg and transportation home to New York. Mrs. Taft would deviate slightly from the plan so as to get in a few hours of shopping for new dresses in Paris.58 The trip proceeded smoothly. The Tafts were particularly well-entertained in Moscow, with the Kremlin opened on a Sunday especially for them to tour. Invitations from foreign dignitaries in other countries were politely refused, with Taft explaining that his mother‘s health condition was unstable, and he had to rush his trip home. Sadly, Louise‘s death did occur while they were still in Europe. Taft received a cable from Charles when their ship, the President Grant made a stop at Plymouth before leaving the British Isles. He arrived home after the funeral, but rushed to Cincinnati to place a wreath on his mother‘s grave. With Louise‘s passing, the last family member who had advised Will to follow his own counsel in deciding whether to run for office was gone. He returned home to run for President.

57 58

WHT to Theodore Roosevelt, October 18, 1907. Mrs. WHT, Recollections, chap. xv.

Chapter 5

BECOMING PRESIDENT To a biographer looking retrospectively at a life of achievement, the concept of ―special destiny‖ does not seem as farfetched as it otherwise might. Circumstances seem to come together to produce opportunities. People become ill or die and positions suddenly become available. Friends and relatives influence political appointments. An individual‘s fortunes may rise through fortuitous press coverage or simply being in the right place at the right time. Of course the individual must be talented enough or wise enough to take advantage of this good fortune. Still, fame may be inadvertent. In Will Taft‘s case, competence combined with good fortune through his early life to produce a serious presidential contender in 1908. Underlying his destiny were two powerful forces—his family and Theodore Roosevelt. The family, including his father, brothers, and wife, had always considered Will destined for great things. These were the people who seriously suggested him for a Supreme Court appointment when he was barely in his 30s and was serving as a rather obscure local jurist. By the time he was appointed Governor of the Philippines, they were convinced that this highprofile position would serve as a potential launching point to the Presidency. When a newspaper editorialist suggested in 1901 that Will might be a possibility for the Republican nomination in 1904, family members were quick to send clippings. Only his mother urged against such a course, knowing that Will‘s real ambition was to become Chief Justice. In this group, Will took the role of skeptic. Whenever mention was made of a Taft Presidency in the future, he responded with all the good reasons why such a phenomenon would never occur. One of the most thorough of these

82

Richard G. Frederick

dissertations came in a letter to Charles in 1901, and established the themes that Taft would harp on until the eve of his nomination seven years later: ―To me such a discussion has for its chief feature the element of humor. The idea that a man who has issued injunctions against labor unions, almost by the bushel, who has sent at least ten or a dozen insolent labor agitators to jail, and who is known as one of the worst judges for the maintenance of government by injunction, could ever become a safe candidate for any party on the presidential ticket, strikes me as intensely ludicrous; and had I the slightest ambition in that direction I hope that my good sense would bid me to suppress it. But, more than this, the horrors of a modern presidential campaign and the political troubles of the successful candidate for the office 1 of President, rob the office of the slightest attraction for me.‖

Taft‘s regular mantra of denial, ―I‘m seen as anti-labor‖ and ―I hate politics‖ would later be joined by ―They‘ll never elect a Unitarian‖ (a reference to Taft‘s religion, which denies the divinity of Jesus Christ). In spite of this, the family insisted, especially after 1904, that Will keep himself available. Theodore Roosevelt was another matter. After his own election in 1904, he had made a statement to the press affirming his faith in the two-term tradition and assuring everyone that he had no intention of running for another term. Questioned about the statement numerous times over the next four years, T.R. insisted that he had not changed his mind on the matter (although just about every writer, then and later, acknowledges that Roosevelt, loving the Presidency as he did, must have sorely rued the impulse that led him to make such a comment). Given his popularity, Roosevelt‘s support would clearly lift any potential candidate into the position of frontrunner for the nomination. That candidate would ultimately be Will Taft, of course, but this fact was not always apparent in the days leading up to 1908. Not only was Roosevelt‘s personality mercurial, which gave the impression of constantly shifting attitudes, but he was also looking to support the best candidate to suit the needs of the Republican party and to perpetuate his own programs. The identity of that candidate changed over time and depending on whom the President was speaking with. Most observers thought that his candidate of choice was Elihu Root, the man Taft replaced as Secretary of War before Root‘s appointment to succeed John Hay in the State Department. Root was an astute politician and policy-maker, whose counsel Roosevelt sought often and 1

WHT to CPT, August 27, 1901.

Becoming President

83

trusted most. He spoke of Root often as the individual who would best continue his policies in national affairs.2 The trouble with Root was his background as a corporate attorney. In the political atmosphere of ―trust-busting‖ and antitrust sentiment in the early 20th Century, this was a greater liability than Taft‘s supposed anti-labor injunctions. Roosevelt recognized this as early as 1905. Writing to his friend, Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, the President contrasted the positions of Root and Taft, concluding that, ―Taft‘s being from the West, together with his attitude on corporations, would for the moment make him the more available man.‖3 Root also clearly recognized that he could not be elected and would lend his considerable support to Taft. Still, Taft was not assured that the nomination was his, if he wanted it. There was always a host of contenders for such a prize. Any of them would be formidable, with the President‘s backing. The list included the Vice-President, Charles Fairbanks of Indiana, Attorney-General Philander Knox of Pennsylvania, House Speaker Joseph Cannon of Illinois, New York Governor Charles Evans Hughes, and Senator Joseph Foraker of Ohio. Known collectively as ―the Allies,‖ these five, along with Robert M. LaFollete, the crusading Senator from Wisconsin, would conduct campaigns during 19071908 and see their names placed into nomination at the Republican National Convention. Without the support of the President, only one was a serious contender – Hughes of New York. Charles Evans Hughes had the undoubted support of President Roosevelt during his race for Governor in 1906. He ran against William Randolph Hearst, the newspaper titan who spent huge sums on his campaign and vilified Republican officeholders in general in his papers, the President included. In a letter probably intended to be quoted in Hughes‘s campaign, but also reflecting Roosevelt‘s opinion, the President told the candidate that ―I regard your triumph as of more consequence than anything else at stake in this election.‖ A few days later, he addressed Hughes as a reformer in his own image – not a radical, but one who would reform the corporations ―in a spirit of sanity and justice.‖4 While Roosevelt did not travel to New York to address the voters there, he encouraged Elihu Root to do so. Root made a rousing speech 2

Oscar King Davis, Released for Publication: Some Inside Political History of Theodore Roosevelt and His Times, 1898-1918 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1925), p. 50. 3 Roosevelt to Lodge, July 11, 1905, in Lodge, ed. Selections from the Correspondence, II, p. 166. 4 Roosevelt to Hughes, October 2 and 5, 1906, Charles Evans Hughes Papers (microfilm edition of papers in the Library of Congress), Reel 2.

84

Richard G. Frederick

denouncing Hearst on November 1, in a meeting in Utica where Hughes was also present.5 Taft was on the campaign trail for Republican candidates in 1906, but far away from New York, in places like Idaho and Nebraska. In receipt of a letter from his wife about a conversation she had with the President, Will wrote to Roosevelt to assure him he understood if the President felt the need to support Hughes for the Presidency in 1908. ―It will not leave the slightest trace of disappointment,‖ he wrote, ―should your views change and think it wise to make a start in any other direction.‖6 Roosevelt responded that he had no intention of supporting Hughes over Taft and that his remarks on the matter had been misinterpreted by Mrs. Taft. ―What I said to her was that you must not be too entirely aloof,‖ else another candidate ―like Hughes, or more probably some man from the West, would turn up with so much popular sentiment behind him that there would be no course open but to support him.‖7 Roosevelt had to be frustrated with Taft‘s attitude. He told Root that Taft‘s refusal of the Court appointment in 1906 would immediately mark him as a Presidential candidate, but ―this he will doubtless even to himself deny.‖8 Whether in denial or simply procrastinating at the beginning of the following year, Taft wrote his brother that ―I would be very glad to avoid the slightest appearance of getting into a political contest, for I have no spirit for it, and am sincere in saying that I do not wish to.‖9 Adding to Taft‘s doubts at this time was the sincere conviction that the President should run for reelection. At a time when Roosevelt was denying any such intention, and expressing some anger at commentators who refused to accept his earlier statement on the matter, his trusty lieutenant Taft was urging his candidacy. When he spoke for candidates in the West in the fall of 1906, he claimed to have encountered torrents of praise for Roosevelt. Western voters would lead the way to a ―unanimous call‖ of the Republican party for Roosevelt‘s renomination, especially if the Democrats nominated Hearst, whom Taft characterized as ―a moral leper‖ and the ―knight of evil.‖ Roosevelt, by contrast, ―has certainly given a tone of decency and high ideal to the national administration that we have not been in the habit of having, and it

5

Philip C. Jessup, Elihu Root (2 vols., New York: Dodd, Mead, 1938), II, pp. 116-20. WHT to Roosevelt, October 31,1906. 7 Roosevelt to WHT, November 5, 1906. 8 Roosevelt to Root, August 18, 1906, Root Papers, Box 163. 9 WHT to CPT, January 1, 1907. 6

Becoming President

85

seems too bad to lapse from that back into the ordinary humdrum method of politics.‖10 Roosevelt continued in his course, and Taft finally accepted the inevitable. The President‘s support for the Secretary doomed the Hughes candidacy. Like Taft, the Governor had initially stayed aloof from acknowledging his potential Presidential candidacy. In fact, he had spurned advice and assistance from the President that might have aided his cause. As one Roosevelt biographer summarized the situation, ―The Governor was intelligent but humorless, and exuded such an aura of scraggly-bearded self-righteousness that Roosevelt had taken to calling him ‗Charles the Baptist.‘‖ When Hughes made a major statement on national issues at the end of January 1908, Roosevelt hurriedly prepared a special message to Congress on the need for reform legislation, released it the same day as the Governor‘s speech, and crowded Hughes off the nation‘s front pages.11 Taft‘s own speech on national affairs premiered in his home state, before the Buckeye Republican Club in Columbus on August 19, 1907, prior to his trip to the Far East in the fall. He worked hard at it, since he intended it as a definition of his stands on several major issues, and planned to recycle parts of it as he spoke along the way to the West Coast for his trip. It came in at 13,000 words, with a delivery time of just under an hour and a half. On the eve of the presentation in Columbus, he worried that it might be too radical for some and too mild for others, but professed to be pleased with it. ―I have written what I really think and I must stand by it,‖ he wrote.12 Consultation with the President came before any speechifying, of course. Since this was to be a major address on national affairs, and one given by a Cabinet member in the Roosevelt administration, Taft needed the imprimatur of the Chief Executive. This was also a kind of litmus test of the relationship between the two. Taft was taken to task by some commentators at the time – and later – for simply parroting Roosevelt‘s words and blindly following his policies.13 But, he now informed Roosevelt, he did have some different outlooks on policies such as the tariff, railroad liability laws, and inheritance taxes, all of which would be discussed in the speech. He was probably aware of the charge of following Roosevelt too closely, since he noted that, ―I do not 10

WHT to Elihu Root, November 10, 1906, Root Papers, Box 166; cf. WHT to Roosevelt, November 1, 1906. 11 Morris, Theodore Rex, p. 506; Davis, Released for Publication, pp. 47-49. For a strong statement of TR‘s support for Taft against Hughes, see his letter to Taft, September 3, 1907. 12 WHT to CPT, August 18, 1907.

86

Richard G. Frederick

think it unwise that with respect to general subjects of this sort, there should be some slight difference of opinion between us.‖ In a hopeful coda, he told the President, ―I think that when you read what I have to say you will agree that I am quite radical enough.‖14 Roosevelt cleared the way with a reassuring response: ―In the essentials we are absolutely one, and the questions of detail are not important.‖15 The speech began with a lengthy section on railroad regulation. Congress had passed the Hepburn Act in 1906, which allowed for the establishment of maximum railroad rates. Taft both explained and extolled the act, suggesting that ―we may reasonably expect a marked improvement in the conduct of the railways of the country.‖(299)16 Further amendments were still needed, though, to enable the Interstate Commerce Commission to fully regulate the industry. ―Such is the true method – the empirical and tentative method – of securing proper remedies for a new evil,‖ Taft remarked. (300) Two specific amendments he recommended would prevent the overcapitalization of the railroads and make them more liable in accidents involving employees. He moved on to a general consideration of trusts. Following the Rooseveltian philosophy, he opined that modern corporations were inevitably large, and that size only became a problem when businesses operated in their own interests and became monopolistic. He then defined unlawful monopoly and promised ―criminal prosecution‖ against attempts by ―aggregated capital‖ to ―suppress competition.‖(308) Taft next offered his thoughts on individual wealth. While he disagreed with the notion that all fortunes involved criminal activity, he conceded that many were enhanced by monopolies, rebates, and finagling with stock issues. He urged the states to pass laws creating a graduated inheritance tax, ―which not only reduces the great fortune but lessens the motive for its accumulation.‖ In addition, he thought the federal government could adopt a similar measure when ―the Government revenues need addition, or readjustment.‖(311) He also supported a graduated income tax, but made clear that it should be imposed only at a later time when the government needed more revenue. Taft next defended Roosevelt‘s policies in general, using this section of the speech to attack socialism as well. He pointed out that Roosevelt‘s

13

See, for example, Davis, Released for Publication, p.50 WHT to Roosevelt, August 6, 1907. 15 Roosevelt to WHT, August 8, 1907. 14

Becoming President

87

programs were firmly based on the precepts of individualism and private property. This was the key to understanding Roosevelt as a reformer. He was a conservative who was upholding the system by fighting abuses of it. And he was fair to all elements. ―Mr. Roosevelt knows no favorite in matters of lawlessness, be he rich or poor, corporation president or member of a labor union,‖ Taft noted. ―The courts must be strong enough to restrain them all.‖(314) Taft may have been extolling what he saw as Roosevelt‘s strengths here, but he was also describing his own vision of how the government should be working. Taft concluded with some remarks on the tariff, but only after criticizing William Jennings Bryan, the perennial spokesman for the Democratic party and the emerging front-runner for the 1908 Presidential nomination. This produced the only lively moments of wit and sarcasm in a speech otherwise marked by a dry and somber tone. (It was surely a dull hour-and-a-half for the thousands of Ohio Republicans crowded into the hall in Columbus on a sweltering summer evening.) He characterized Bryan as an impractical populist who would preside over a powerless government. On the matter of the tariff, Taft presented himself as a protectionist who recognized that some periodic adjustments had to be made in tariffs to reflect changing conditions in business. He was not yet ready to advocate a special session of Congress to deal with the problem (which he would later do), but he implied strongly that downward revision was necessary. Taft was full of himself after the speech. He told his mother that the crowd numbered more than 8,000 in a hall which seated 5,000. The next day he wrote Charles to tell him, ―There certainly were 20,000 people in the neighborhood of the hall.‖ Furthermore, he boasted that it was no exaggeration to call it ―as great a meeting as they ever had in Ohio anywhere.‖ He also reported the Ohio papers were ―quite friendly in their comments,‖ though the Eastern newspapers ―do not gush over the speech.‖17 Later he commented that the papers in New York had criticized him for hewing too close to Roosevelt‘s line, a criticism he did not understand. ―Did they suppose I was coming out to attack Roosevelt‘s policies?‖ he wondered. ―Did they suppose I had staid [sic] in the Cabinet this long and disapproved of them?‖ He was sailing for Asia. He would come back home and see what had transpired in his absence. If his 16

The speech is found in Oscar King Davis, William Howard Taft: The Man of the Hour (St. Louis: Thompson Publishing Company, 1908), pp. 296-318. Page numbers for quotes from the speech are given in the text. 17 WHT to Louise Taft, August 20, 1907 and to CPT, August 21, 1907.

88

Richard G. Frederick

candidacy was ―busted,‖ that would be fine. ―I have had a run for my money and it has been a novel and not uninteresting experience.‖18 He came home to find himself the acknowledged candidate in most quarters. His continuing support from President Roosevelt, a flurry of positive newspaper editorials around the country, and a lack of prominent contenders all combined to produce this situation. Brother Charles contributed by hiring publicist A. I. Vorys to set up an office and canvass Ohio for Taft, mainly as a way of combating the Foraker threat there. Charles also set up an office in New York, under Charles D. Hilles, who had helped McKinley get elected and would later become Will‘s personal secretary.19 The candidate was directly involved in the campaign in the early months of 1908, traveling from Ohio to Nebraska on a speaking tour designed to give him additional exposure in the Midwest. At the same time, he continued to carry on with his duties in the War Department. Notably, he traveled to Panama in May. The problems he addressed there were both internal and external ones, involving the possible removal of a controversial commissioner and potential problems with elections slated for the summer.20 Like other such trips, this one received a fair amount of press coverage and reinforced the notion that candidate Taft was well-versed in matters of diplomacy. By the time the Republican convention met in Chicago on June 16, Taft had the nomination sewn up. The outcome was never in doubt. On the first ballot, Taft tallied 702 votes; the runner-up was Philander Knox with a paltry 68, one more than Charles Evans Hughes. But there was more to the convention than the Presidential ballot. There were always colorful and strange sights to behold among the delegations, with their banners and slogans. Alice Roosevelt Longworth viewed events from seats just above the Texas delegation, which sported a flagpole with ―a huge pair of trousers made of wool from Texas Angora goats, on it a placard with the inscription, ‗As pants the hart for cooling streams, so Texas pants for Taft‘.‖21 Will and Nellie received the news of the convention by wire in Will‘s office at the War Department. Their son Robert attended the convention, along with his uncles Charley and Henry and most of their families. There was excitement on the second day of the proceedings, when Roosevelt‘s name was 18

WHT to Horace Taft, September 10, 1907. Ross, American Family, pp. 194-95. 20 Taft to Roosevelt, May 9, 1908. This lengthy cable on conditions was followed on May 16 by a 32-page report. 21 Longworth, Crowded Hours, p. 151. 19

Becoming President

89

mentioned by the convention‘s chairman, Henry Cabot Lodge. A 49-minute demonstration broke out, with delegates chanting the President‘s name and calling for ―four more years.‖ The near-riot especially irked Nellie, who never trusted Roosevelt‘s sincerity in denying any ambition for another term. When Taft‘s name was placed in contention the following day, Nellie was disappointed by the delegates‘ response, which was enthusiastic, but shorter than the Roosevelt outpouring.22 She was, of course, mollified by the onesided nomination. The naming of the Vice-Presidential candidate seems to have been more or less given over to chance. With refusals from leading Congressional figures, Taft and Roosevelt did not press the issue before the convention, and the selection was made by the delegates. ―Sunny Jim‖ Sherman from New York was the pick. He had served for over 22 years in the House of Representatives, where he was considered a leading Parliamentarian and was, according to one observer, ―intimately familiar with every political movement in Washington.‖ He was rich and conservative, which might reassure corporate America that the Republican trust busters were not anti-business. He was from a state with a large number of electors, and should guarantee that New York would back the G.O.P. Furthermore, he was popular in Congress, which should boost the party‘s chances for a successful legislative program.23 One other matter at the convention would have significant ramifications four years later. Mainly as a leftover result of the Reconstruction years, the delegate representation from the Southern states was disproportionately large. A Pennsylvania delegate introduced a resolution to change this by reducing the size of Southern delegations. After a vigorous debate, the resolution narrowly failed, thanks in large part to a telegram President Roosevelt sent to the convention. The irony lay in the fact that these large Southern delegations would be mainly responsible for Taft‘s renomination in 1912, in opposition to Roosevelt.24 The convention delegates also voted down a list of reform proposals brought by the Wisconsin delegation headed by Senator Robert M. 22

Manners, TR and Will, pp. 52-53; cf. Dunn, Harrison to Harding, pp. 74-75, who claimed the Roosevelt demonstration was ―manufactured‖ by opponents of Taft. Mrs. Taft need not have worried. TR had instructed Lodge to show a letter of denial to any delegates who showed signs of abandoning Taft for the President. See TR to Lodge, June 1, 1908, in Lodge, ed., Selections, II, pp. 294-95. 23 Chauncey M. Depew, My Memories of Eighty Years (New York: Charles Scribner‘s Sons, 1924), pp. 175-78 (quote on p. 175). 24 Watson, As I Knew Them, p. 129; Dunn, Harrison to Harding, II:75. The vote by states is found in National Party Conventions, 1831-2004 (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2005), p. 207.

90

Richard G. Frederick

LaFollette. More than 90% of Republican delegates voted against the direct election of United States Senators, an eight-hour day for government workers, campaign finance reform, the creation of a Department of Labor and a permanent tariff commission.25 Each of these measures would be passed in some form by the end of the next decade, an indication of the rapidly changing nature of American politics in the period. It would clearly take a politically astute President to keep up with such a pace of change. Having defeated the LaFollette reform proposals, the convention adopted a platform that contained few surprises. After a preamble reminding readers that the party had destroyed slavery, saved the Union, and made the country the wealthiest in the world, the document extolled the most recent Republican President. Promised action for the future included a special session of Congress to revise tariff rates, a continuation of sound money policies, and the creation of a postal bank system. Continuing regulation of trusts and railroads was also on the list, as were the standard nods to labor and farmers. Foreign policy was lightly treated, with mention of the importance of commerce abroad, continued plans for treaties of arbitration, and hopes for continued progress in Cuba, the Philippines, and Panama. The platform concluded with a statement of ―Fundamental Differences between Democracy and Republicanism,‖ which expressed monetary and other issues in the political hyperbole of the day. The conclusion drawn was that the Republican Party essentially stood for solid American values, while the Democrats, with their ideas on public ownership, showed a proclivity toward Socialism.26 With the nomination in hand, Taft retired to Hot Springs, Virginia, after resigning from his Cabinet position at the end of June. There he would work on his acceptance speech and prepare himself for the coming campaign. In the meantime, the Democrats convened their meeting in Denver, Colorado, the first time a national convention was held west of Kansas City. The Democrats were in some disarray following the 1904 election and the poor showing of Judge Parker. The conservative wing of the party responsible for Parker‘s nomination over William Jennings Bryan was discredited by the poor showing, though it is doubtful that any candidate could have slowed the Roosevelt juggernaut. Bryan was back in 1908. He was the most visible Democrat on the national scene, expressing his opinions in his weekly newspaper, The 25 26

Ibid., p. 86. Johnson, Donald Bruce, comp., National Party Platforms (rev. ed. 2 Vols., Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1978), I:157-63. The Democratic platform is on pp. 144-51.

Becoming President

91

Commoner, and traveling the countryside on the Chautauqua circuit speaking his mind on a variety of national issues. With tremendous grassroots support, he bulldozed his nomination, although many Democrats were not convinced he could win. Virginia Governor Claude Swanson typified this feeling when he stated, ―Bryan is sure to be nominated, and sure to be defeated. Let us hope that will end him and that we can then elect another man four years later.‖27 Notwithstanding such reservations, Bran‘s nomination was overwhelming, with 888 ½ votes out of 1002 cast on the first ballot on July 11. John W. Kern of Indiana was selected for the Vice-Presidency. The Democrats promised more in the way of reform than the Republicans. Not surprisingly, their platform fell short of promoting public ownership of telephone and telegraph lines, but the document reflected the influence of Populist planks on which Bryan had earlier run. Ironically, it also contained most of the reform planks introduced by the LaFollette group at the Republican convention. The Democrats criticized the Republicans for increasing the size of the federal government, increased spending, the Panic of 1907, and for being dilatory in regulating trusts and railroads. Proclaiming themselves the party of the people, the Democrats concluded their platform by stating: ―The Democratic party stands for Democracy; the Republican party has drawn to itself all that is aristocratic and plutocratic.‖28 Taft set out to proclaim a forward-looking program. His first notable public appearance would be in Cincinnati, in front of brother Charley‘s historic downtown home. The event was ―Notification Day,‖ when a Republican committee officially informed the candidate of his nomination, and Taft made a formal speech of acceptance. After working hard on the speech at Hot Springs, Taft traveled to Oyster Bay to get the Roosevelt seal of approval. The President telegraphed a brief critique, in which he found most of the work ―admirable.‖ He warned Taft, however, to cut down on the use of his name to avoid ―undue subordination of yourself,‖ an admonition that Nellie had delivered to her husband months earlier.29

27

Quoted in Paolo Coletta, William Jennings Bryan I. Political Evangelist (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1964), p. 403. 28 Johnson, National Party Platforms, pp. 144-51 (quote on p. 150). 29 Roosevelt to WHT (tel) July 21, 1908; Mrs. WHT to WHT, February 15, 1908. One commentator claims that this ―marked the close of the Roosevelt-Taft intimacy,‖ since Taft‘s brother Charles was incensed by his brother‘s continuing to seek TR‘s approval. He insisted that Will make a choice and he opted for family advisors. See Stoddard, As I Knew Them, pp. 341-43.

92

Richard G. Frederick

Taft‘s speech was the reason for the occasion of Notification Day, but the event turned out to be much more than just the speech. What was intended as a formal affair attended by relatively few party leaders and members of the press turned into general festivities. The Cincinnati city fathers meant to honor their native son. A holiday was declared in the city. Cannons boomed from the city‘s seven hills early in the morning, daytime and nighttime fireworks displays were set off, and enterprising locals offered hot-air balloon ascents and automobile rides. American flags were displayed on buildings and in windows throughout the city, and a special flag-raising event took place at the Taft residence. Veterans of the Civil War and the Spanish American War came to town and met with the candidate. A thousand dignitaries, members of the press, and family friends were admitted by ticket to the Taft front lawn where a special platform was constructed over the front steps for the speech.30 The speech began around noon and lasted for over an hour. Taft skipped over several parts, since the day was extremely hot and both he and the guests suffered from the warm temperatures. His major points were two: to contrast the policies of the parties as stated in their platforms and to remind voters about the glorious successes of the present Republican administration. He did not so much offer to pursue progressive policies as to insure that Roosevelt‘s accomplishments would be solidified in the coming years. He didn‘t speak of new programs but of machinery to operate those already in place. ―The chief function of the next Administration,‖ he said, ―is to complete and perfect the machinery by which these standards may be maintained, by which the lawbreakers may be promptly restrained and punished, but which shall operate with sufficient accuracy and dispatch to interfere with legitimate business as little as possible.‖ He suggested reorganization of bureaus in the Departments of Commerce and Labor, Justice, and Agriculture to safeguard the public‘s interest in dealing with railroads and corporations. In all, the speech was more a conservative statement of aims than a clarion call to forge ahead and advance progressive policies.31 Taft initially hoped to engage only marginally in the actual campaigning. He journeyed back to Hot Springs after the Cincinnati speech, where he played golf, relaxed, and planned a leisurely late summer visiting relatives and vacationing with his family as he had in the years since returning from the Philippines. According to one contemporary journalist, ―The remark was made at that time that apparently Taft was going to let someone else elect him 30 31

CPT to Dr. William A. Edwards, July 25, 1908; New York Times, July 29, 1908, p. 1. The entire speech is found in ibid., pp. 4-5.

Becoming President

93

President just as he had allowed someone else to nominate him.‖32 President Roosevelt would play an active role in the campaign, as would some members of his Cabinet and some progressive members of Congress such as Senators LaFollette of Wisconsin and Beveridge of Indiana. There was also an intensive ―official‖ campaign effort waged by the Republican National Committee. Since February, this group was headed by Frank Hitchcock, who had resigned as Assistant Postmaster General to head the campaign. In his headquarters at the Metropolitan Building in New York, Hitchcock created a gigantic system of index cards and preached efficiency in running an organized operation. He claimed that his office was staffed by professionals hired for expertise, rather than usual politicos who were attracted to campaigns. According to one press report, the national Republican committee had ―the aggressive spirit of progressiveness, tempered by conservative practical business methods, that recognizes causes and goes after results.‖33 Hitchcock‘s methods may have impressed some observers, but others found him contentious or difficult to work with. Taft noted this as early as July, addressing the problem to Hitchcock‘s old boss, Postmaster General George B. Cortelyou. Taft‘s friend, John Hays Hammond, thought that Hitchcock was jealous of anyone who might receive credit for Taft‘s success. Like others, Hammond also commented on Hitchcock‘s propensity for travel, noting that when problems arose in New York, he immediately left town and settled in the Chicago headquarters until trouble blew in there and forced him back to New York. Hammond wryly remarked that Hitchcock ―spent most of his time railroading himself out of political realities.‖34 The campaign nevertheless went along. Taft took ideas from visitors to Hot Springs and Cincinnati. When Oscar S. Straus, Roosevelt‘s Secretary of Commerce and Labor, visited Taft in the Queen City, he brought along Terence Powderly, former chief of the Knights of Labor, who headed one of the Divisions in Straus‘s department in 1908. Straus knew that Taft was concerned about his standing with labor groups and assured him that 32

Stoddard, As I Knew Them, p. 345. He went on to call Taft a ―listless campaigner‖ and to note that Roosevelt and Hughes speeches were ―the only memorable incidents of an otherwise lifeless campaign.‖ 33 Joe Mitchell Chapple, ―A New Era in Political Campaigning,‖ National Magazine (September 1908), 601-10, copy in Frank Hitchcock Papers, Box 1. 34 John Hays Hammond, The Autobiography of John Hays Hammond, 2 Vols., (New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1935) , II: 538-39; Taft to Cortelyou, July 30, 1908, George Cortelyou Papers, Box 20.

94

Richard G. Frederick

Powderly‘s support would be especially valuable, given his high standing with ―the intelligent labor men of the country.‖35 Straus would later undertake several speaking engagements during the campaign, notably in New York and Maryland, where he would address labor questions. President Roosevelt, always an active campaigner himself, chided Taft for his apparent aloofness from a rigorous speaking schedule. His specific concern was the continuing press coverage of Taft‘s golf matches, an activity that Roosevelt said others regarded as elitist. He strongly advised that Taft quit playing the game, at least during the campaign, reminding the candidate that ―I never let any friends advertise my tennis, and never let a photo of me in tennis costume appear.‖36 Will replied defensively that he had worked very hard in Hot Springs, but with little to write about the newspapermen concentrated on his golf matches. He assured Roosevelt that he had a tough itinerary just beginning, with no thoughts of golf or fishing.37 John Hays Hammond thought Roosevelt‘s criticisms unfair: ―Just what form of exercise a man weighing over three hundred pounds should take was not suggested; possibly tennis or running, or pole vaulting.‖38 In late September, Taft began a speaking tour which carried him as far west as Colorado. Judging from a sampling of the speeches he delivered on this and later occasions during the campaign, he had been working hard in Hot Springs, preparing major addresses on a half-dozen topics of importance which he thought marked the basic differences between the parties and between Bryan and himself. His send-off was a speech in Cincinnati, where he looked back at ―The Republican Party: What It Has Done.‖ This gave Taft the opportunity to review Roosevelt‘s accomplishments and to contrast his moderate approach with Bryan‘s radicalism – this was to be a major theme of the entire campaign.39 On the following evening, Taft explained his views on strikes and injunctions in labor disputes to an audience largely comprised of members of the railroad brotherhoods in Chicago. He explained and defended his positions 35

Straus to WHT, August 27, 1908 and reply, September 4, 1908, Oscar S. Straus Papers, Box 10. 36 TR to WHT, September 14, 1908. Cf. the follow-up from TR on September 16. 37 WHT to TR, September 21, 1908. 38 Hammond, Autobiography, II: 540. 39 Taft‘s speeches in 1908 and 1909, published in 1910 as Political Issues and Outlooks, have been reprinted as Volume 2 in David H. Burton, ed., The Collected Works of William Howard Taft (8 Vols., Athens: Ohio University Press, 2001-03). The above-noted speech is found in II: 68-84. (This work is hereinafter cited as Collected Works of WHT.)

Becoming President

95

on the subject while he was a judge in the 1880s and 1890s. He essentially demonstrated in each case that the law he had established was currently in line with the policies of the railway brotherhoods. Furthermore, he pointed out that he ―distinctly decided‖ that ―no temporary restraining order or injunction could issue to prevent a man‘s leaving the employ of a railway, and therefore that no injunction could issue to restrain men from acting in concert and going on a strike.‖40 The effect of the speech was to show Taft and the Republican party as friendly to the working man, in spite of the Democrats‘ claim to exclusivity in this regard. In Milwaukee the next night, Taft spoke on the tariff. He castigated Democrats for their refusal to embrace protectionism, and repeated his party‘s pledge to call for a special session of Congress to deal with tariff revision. He stressed fairness and high-minded principles in dealing with the economic measure, but he also forecasted some of the ensuing difficulties with the subject. He noted that manufacturers would undoubtedly push for higher rates to ―secure them in their business.‖ But he also pointed to ―a large element in the Republican party representing the consumer, through whom the demand for a revision of the tariff on conservative protective lines to reduce excessive rates has crystallized into the definite pledge to revise the tariff.‖41 Taft‘s bottom line was that most revisions would be downward, with ―a few exceptions.‖ Taft‘s subsequent speeches on his Western swing continued to develop themes articulated in the Republican platform. He spoke on postal savings banks, and on Republican guarantees to laborers and to employers. He later traveled to the Tennessee, where he attempted to break the Democratic stranglehold on the ―solid South‖ by pointing out that the more conservative fiscal policies of the Republicans were closer to the inclinations of Southerners than the radical platform of Bryan‘s group. He argued that most Southerners only voted Democratic ―just to preserve the historic traditions,‖ and poked fun at that peculiar behavior.42 There was nothing whimsical in his lengthy speech to labor groups at New York‘s Cooper Union on October 28. Here he addressed the recent declaration of Democratic Party support by Samuel Gompers, the head of the American Federation of Labor. He pointed out the Republican Party policies favorable to labor and argued that his own decisions as a judge were not inimical to the 40

Ibid., II: 91. Ibid., II: 105. (Entire speech on pp. 99-106.) 42 Ibid., II: 135. (Entire speech on pp. 133-41.) 41

96

Richard G. Frederick

unions. He noted that, while he had decided cases against labor groups, he also made decisions against ―combinations of capital.‖ He basically argued the proposition that ―There is no man in public life that has greater sympathy with the lawful purposes of organizing for its own protection and in seeking to maintain the rate of wages and other favorable terms of employment than I have.‖43 The strategy of using local politicians to speak for the ticket with Taft used sparingly and selectively worked well, in spite of some journalists‘ assertions that the candidate was lazy in his approach to the campaign. He was always adamant that he would not undertake a ―Pullman car platform campaign,‖ but thought that his taking the stump would produce ―an encouraging and stimulating effect‖ on what was obviously a somewhat divided party in 1908.44 His action had the desired effect. One Colorado observer called his appearance there ―the most enthusiastic Republican political meeting‖ he had attended in the state. Taft himself averred that his Western trip was ―very satisfactory‖ and that the crowds had been supportive. He hoped especially to make inroads on the labor vote in Western states, and thought that his clarifying speeches on his position had some effect, even though he merely told the truth – that organized labor did not have the overwhelming rights that some leaders claimed.45 What may have helped Taft most in his public appearances was his personality. If he was not, in reality, the personification of the jolly fat man, it did not hurt if audiences saw the cliché, rather than the real Taft. Theodore Roosevelt understood this. He instructed Taft not only to hit hard against Bryan in his speeches, but also to ―Let the audience see you smile, always, because I feel your nature shines out transparently when you do smile.‖46 Biographer Henry Pringle pointed to Taft‘s ―subterranean chuckle which preceded Taft‘s frequent laughter‖ during his speech-making. The production of the laughter was so spontaneous and sincere, Pringle concluded, that the audience laughed ―even when the point which had amused Taft was vague to them.‖47

43

Ibid., II: 156. (Entire speech on pp. 153-67). WHT to TR, August 20 and September 11, 1908. 45 John Campbell enclosure in TR to WHT, October 6; WHT to TR, October 3 and 9, 1908. 46 TR to WHT, September 11, 1908. 47 Pringle, Taft, I:367; John Hays Hammond has a similar description of the ―famous chuckle‖ in his Autobiography, II: 541. 44

Becoming President

97

Taft‘s campaigning, the contributions of Roosevelt and other politicians, the value of the Roosevelt popularity, a healthy economy, and the lack of any real scandal (although there was a question raised about large corporate campaign contributions) all led to a substantial Republican victory at the polls. In the end, Taft lost only three states outside of the solid South, and each of these was by a slim margin. Bryan‘s home state of Nebraska was joined by the silver-mining states of Colorado and Nevada in the Democratic column. Colorado voters gave Bryan less than a 3,000-vote margin, out of more than a quarter of a million votes cast. Nebraska had a similar number of voters, who gave their favorite son a narrow 4,000-vote edge. The Republicans scored victories in all of the other Northern states, as Taft won the electoral vote by a 321-162 margin. The popular tally showed 7,678,000 for Taft and 6,408,000 for Bryan. While not a rout, Taft‘s election represented a decisive victory for the candidate and the Republican party. After celebrating with the family in Cincinnati, Will exchanged congratulatory letters and telegrams with friends and party leaders, including the President. In a letter to T.R., he expressed the belief that his election had been the product of efforts by the President and Taft‘s brother Charley. This notion infuriated Roosevelt, who distrusted the Taft family‘s political acuity and figured that his had been the only support that Taft needed.48 If Roosevelt was nonplussed by Taft‘s misplaced gratitude, the events of the next few months would not reassure him, as Taft went about the business of selecting a cabinet and Mrs. Taft made her own plans to take over the White House. Taft settled in again at Hot Springs to rest and play golf after the grueling campaign. Later, he would retreat to Augusta, Georgia, which allowed him the opportunity to continue golfing during the early winter while avoiding as many political contacts as possible. He joked to reporters and others that he would not need to worry about presidential affairs for months, but he was actively engaged in selecting his cabinet. His key contact in doing so was the man he selected to lead the group as Secretary of State, Philander C. Knox. Knox was a former corporate attorney, who had served as Attorney General under Roosevelt before becoming a United States Senator from Pennsylvania. During his time in the Roosevelt cabinet, he was responsible for originating the Northern Securities case, which was the first of the ―trust-busting‖ cases brought against large corporations during the Roosevelt administration. Taft explained his thoughts on cabinet-building to Knox in December of 1908. While he understood that his recent predecessors had balanced religious 48

Manners, TR and Will, p. 63.

98

Richard G. Frederick

and geographical considerations in their selections, he did not intend to do so. He also did not intend to keep the Roosevelt cabinet, although a number of its members had the impression that they were staying on. As he told Knox, he planned the reorganization of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Departments of Justice and Commerce and Labor ―with a view to the more harmonious cooperation in the enforcement of an amended antitrust law.‖ ―I need a cabinet of as many experienced lawyers as I can get to draft the statutes for congressional consideration in December 1909,‖ he continued.49 Taft got his lawyers. Of the nine members of the cabinet, six were lawyers, most with close ties to corporations and railroads. Besides Knox, New York corporate attorney George W. Wickersham was appointed Attorney General, Jacob Dickinson, Secretary of War, Frank H. Hitchcock, Postmaster General, Charles Nagel, Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and Richard A. Ballinger Secretary of the Interior. Franklin MacVeagh, a banker, became Secretary of the Treasury, James Wilson was held over from the two previous administrations as Secretary of Agriculture, and George von L. Meyer moved from Postmaster General under Roosevelt to become Taft‘s Secretary of the Navy. Taft would be criticized for the conservative direction of cabinet choices, especially for the connections with big business, but he rationalized his choices as part of a plan to develop policies in a ―somewhat different‖ form from the ―old administration.‖50 One incumbent who was not pleased with Taft‘s actions was James R. Garfield, a fellow Ohioan and Roosevelt‘s Secretary of the Interior. As a member of Roosevelt‘s ―tennis cabinet,‖ he enjoyed close social and professional relations with the outgoing President. In the flurry of rumors swirling about the capital after the election, it appeared that Garfield might be asked to remain in the Taft cabinet. As December blended into January, he spoke with Roosevelt and his friend in the Department of Agriculture‘s Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot, who both assured him that Taft was remiss in not informing him of his intentions. He confided to his personal diary that he was ―perplexed and annoyed‖ just before Christmas. A week after New Year‘s, he was ―utterly at sea‖ and felt that Taft‘s irresponsibility at not informing cabinet members about his intentions was ―wholly without reasonable explanation.‖ When Taft finally wrote, Garfield found his letter ―curiously weak and not sincere,‖ and mused that Taft was unwilling to explain his real reasons for not keeping most of Roosevelt‘s cabinet. He finally concluded that ―Taft has fallen 49 50

WHT to Philander Knox, December 27, 1908, Knox Papers, Cont. 6. WHT to George B. Cortelyou, January 22, 1909, Cortelyou Papers, Box 20.

Becoming President

99

into strange hands.‖ This came after hearing about Taft‘s appearance at the Ohio Society Dinner in New York City, where Taft had not adequately defended the President‘s policies.51 Garfield‘s concerns were typical of those expressed by many progressive Republicans prior to Taft‘s inauguration. Other politicians and journalists looked, in his public statements and actions, for signs of the direction he planned to follow. How would his policies differ from those of Theodore Roosevelt? In the appointment of his cabinet, many saw him being influenced by the party‘s Old Guard, the conservative, pro-business wing of the party that had dominated its direction until Roosevelt‘s ascendancy. But business leaders also had reservations about Taft as well. Ironically, varying observations about Taft emerged from the Ohio Society speech he gave in New York in December, 1908, when Garfield thought he was not an able defender of T.R. Taft‘s speech at the banquet restated his desire to modify antitrust legislation and defined his position on tariff revision. According to one observer present, who reported his impressions to Philander Knox, Taft‘s ―speech on these two points was very coldly received by the powerful interests which were largely represented at the banquet. I heard expressions of dissatisfaction from a number of very prominent men in financial and industrial circles.‖52 In attempting to steer his own course, it appeared as though Taft would have difficulty satisfying either of the groups within his party. Other men who were perhaps more astute politicians had understood this. Senator Beveridge, for example, had been informed that he should make the run as the ―logical successor‖ to Theodore Roosevelt. His response was that he had no desire to succeed Roosevelt. ―The man who succeeds Roosevelt will have too much to contend with and is doomed to unpopularity,‖ he stated. ―If he follows in Roosevelt‘s footsteps people will say, ‗he‘s aping Teddy‘; if he does not do just as Roosevelt has been doing, he will be accused of ‗throwing down Roosevelt‘s policies.‘‖53 The next four years promised to be an exciting time for President Taft and American politics.

51

Garfield‘s musings are found in his personal diary in the James R. Garfield Papers, Box 8. The above quotes are found in Volumes 26 (1908) and 27 (1909). 52 W.A. Day to Philander Knox, Knox Papers, Cont. 6. 53 Dunn, From Harrison to Harding, II:43.

Chapter 6

THE PRESIDENCY On Inauguration Day, March 4, 1909, the entire city of Washington glistened. Unfortunately, what glistened was not the bright light of celebratory decoration, but the ice which hung from trees and buildings and slowed train, automobile, and wagon traffic to a standstill. In spite of forecasts for pleasant weather for the inauguration, the previous evening had brought in a storm unlike anything seen in years by Washingtonians. The ice storm that coated the trees and telegraph wires was followed by snow, which quickly turned to slush. While Mrs. Taft cast a baleful eye at the terrible conditions, her husband jokingly remarked that ―I always said it would be a cold day when I got to be President of the United States.‖1 The Tafts had spent the previous evening in the White House as guests of the Roosevelts, so T.R. and Will set out together for the Capitol in the morning. Festivities which were normally held outdoors were rescheduled for the Senate chambers, where Taft would be sworn in and deliver his inaugural address. The new President was sworn in at noon by Chief Justice Melville Fuller in front of family members and the usual assembly of dignitaries. He then read his inaugural speech, which was not a particularly lengthy address as speeches of the day went, but was longer than inaugurals of most Presidents at the time. Rather than just delivering a few platitudes and high-sounding phrases about hoped-for achievements, Taft talked about specifics. In this regard, the speech had more in common with campaign addresses than with most other

1

Mrs. WHT, Recollections of a Full Life, p. 328.

102

Richard G. Frederick

Presidential inaugurals. In fact, it had much in common with other addresses he gave just prior to and immediately following his election. He began by acknowledging the accomplishments of the Roosevelt administration, and pledged that the ―maintenance and enforcement of those reforms‖ would be a key feature of his presidency. He then proceeded, as he had in his address to the Ohio Society in December, to discuss the reorganization of several departments in the government and to emphasize the need for tariff revision. He promoted economy in government, conservation policies, and the maintenance of a modern military force. He defined America‘s foreign policy as primarily directed to achieving peace. He spoke of the continuing large immigration to the United States and the need for federal safeguards for the rights of aliens. He talked about changing the country‘s money and banking laws, and establishing postal-savings banks. He addressed foreign trade, and made specific mention of the places with which he was most familiar in his work of recent years – The Philippines, Panama, and the Caribbean, in particular. He ended his address with two matters of some controversy. The first was to address Southern questions, specifically regarding racial politics. The Republican party had traditionally attracted African-American voters, with white Southerners voting in a solid Democratic bloc. Taft now gave lip service to the Constitutional amendments passed during Reconstruction, but in such a way as to legitimize much of the Southern discriminatory legislation which had since succeeded in disenfranchising large numbers of black voters. Finally, he defended the right of the courts to issue injunctions in labor disputes, a subject which had arisen frequently during the campaign. While noting recent Republican successes in passing employer liability and child-labor laws, he called on Congress to enact legislation defining the passage of temporary restraining orders by the courts. On the whole, the speech was workmanlike in attempting to set the tone for the coming years. It was hardly inspiring.2 When the ceremonies ended, the Tafts set a precedent. The outgoing President would normally have accompanied the new Chief Executive back to his residence, but Roosevelt left the Capitol to catch a train back to Oyster Bay, citing pressing needs before his upcoming trip to Africa. Nellie Taft became the initial First Lady to accompany her husband on the ride back down Pennsylvania Avenue, a trip she thoroughly enjoyed. She called the drive ―the proudest and happiest event of Inauguration Day,‖ supposing that she ―had a little secret elation in thinking that I was doing something which no woman 2

The speech is reprinted in Collected Works of WHT, 3: 44-55.

The Presidency

103

had ever done before.‖3 Her return to the White House as its mistress was an imperious one. Taft seemed disgruntled, according to the chief White House usher, Ike Hoover. He sank into a large chair and remarked, ―I am President now, and tired of being kicked around.‖4 Nellie placed her personal stamp on the White House even before Inauguration Day. She must have foreseen her role as similar to that in the Philippines, when she functioned as a sort of queen. Working with Taft‘s military aide, Archie Butt, who would ease the transition from the Roosevelts to the Tafts, she planned significant changes for the White House staff. The White House kitchen would be responsible for preparing state dinners, rather than local caterers. She replaced the white ushers formally attired in frock coats and replaced them with four African-Americans in liveried uniforms. She hired a housekeeper, did away with receiving lines at social affairs, and replaced Mrs. Roosevelt‘s social secretary with a stenographer.5 Nellie also took it upon herself to secure transportation for the White House. Eschewing the horse-and-buggy style favored by the outgoing Roosevelts, she favored the modern motor car, even managing to secure a Congressional appropriation of $12,000. She stretched this limited budget into a four-car fleet, including her own Baker electric Victoria, by allowing the car companies to use the White House in their advertising.6 She also personally lobbied individual Congressmen for money to develop the area along the Potomac River south of the White House. Under her direction, Potomac Park would change from a swampy backwater to a green area with lush plantings, a driving promenade, and a bandstand.7 With these varied activities, as well as White House entertaining and some at least informal consultation with her husband on political affairs, Nellie was in her element during the first months of her tenure as First Lady. This situation changed dramatically on May 17. After going to the hospital where young Charlie had an operation for adenoids, Nellie rushed to the White House to accompany her husband and several others on a trip down the 3

Mrs. WHT, Recollections of a Full Life, p. 332. Irwin Hood Hoover, Forty-Two Years in the White House (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1934), p. 41. 5 Anthony, Nellie Taft, pp. 219-20. 6 Ibid., pp. 240-41. The best treatment of the subject is Michael L. Bromley‘s William Howard Taft and the First Motoring Presidency, 1909-1913 (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2003), chap. iv. In an appendix, Bromley lists all of the motor vehicles owned or leased by the White House during Taft‘s years in office. 7 Anthony, Nellie Taft, chap. xii. 4

104

Richard G. Frederick

Potomac to Mount Vernon. Aboard the ship she suffered a stroke. She would not be able to speak at all for several weeks, and her movements were carefully restricted. She made a slow recovery, but was rarely seen in public over the next year. Ike Hoover wrote that ―never was there even a partial return to the situation during the first two months.‖ No longer did she participate in discussions of political affairs and ―Only under the most careful supervision was she permitted to take her place in the doings of the household.‖8 Nellie‘s condition certainly cast a pall over the White House. While it was clear after the first few weeks that she would survive, and later, that she would recover her faculties, she would not be available as the political sounding board she had been. This would be a noticeable loss in the Taft administration.

PROBLEMS WITH THE INSURGENTS President Roosevelt had a particularly rocky time dealing with Congress during his lame-duck period. Of 24 bills backed by the administration in the first session, only one was reported out of committee and that one was killed on the floor of the House. Congressional leaders in the second session were angered by accusations T.R. made in his annual message at the end of 1908, and the House formally rebuked the president in January 1909. A historian of the subject commented that the 60th Congress ―proved to be one of the most obstructive legislative bodies in American history.‖9 Roosevelt‘s difficulty had been with members of the conservative wing, or the Old Guard, of his party, who found many of his reform proposals too radical. Taft‘s objective was to carry on the Roosevelt policies, as enunciated in the compromise Republican platform, while dealing with the split in his own party between the standpatters and the insurgents, who found the leadership of their party too conservative. The first test of his handling of this delicate situation came in the months before his presidency, when he was

8 Hoover, 42 Years in the White House, p. 42; Major Butt was on the Potomac journey when Mrs. Taft‘s misfortune occurred, and describes it in his Taft and Roosevelt: The Intimate Letters of Archie Butt, Military Aide (2 Vols.; Garden City: Doubleday, Doran & Company, Inc., 1930), I:86-91. 9 Carl E. Hatch, The Big Stick and the Congressional Gavel: A Study of Theodore Roosevelt’s Relations with His Last Congress, 1907-1909 (New York: Pageant Press, 1967), p. 1. He details the animosity in chaps. ii-iii.

The Presidency

105

expected to take a stand on the matter of Congressional leadership, particularly in the House of Representatives. The conservative Joseph G. Cannon of Illinois had accrued tremendous power as Speaker of the House; his control of the Rules Committee enabled him to torpedo any legislation that the progressive bloc might propose. Taft initially backed the notion of ousting Cannon as Speaker. During the Presidential race, he called Cannon the ―obstruction to all legislation of a progressive character that we really need.‖ But he also noted that, while there was a movement among Western Congressmen to remove the Speaker, there was a strong group determined to secure his position. This put Taft in a tricky situation, since ―to attempt to defeat ‗Joe‘ and not to succeed would be worse than to let him get in and deal with him as best I can.‖10 At Roosevelt‘s urging, Taft met with Cannon. He also tallied the strength of the anti-Cannon forces and realized that their numbers were short of the majority needed to oust the Speaker. Thus his meeting with Cannon was for the purpose of reconciliation rather than anything else, since it was a foregone conclusion that he would again be the leader in the House. Following the meeting, Taft issued public statements to the effect that he looked forward to working with the Speaker and was assured of his good faith in carrying out the Republican program. While this may not have been entirely true, the perception of the progressives was that Taft had taken a stand with the conservative side of the party.11 The party‘s progressives watched carefully as Taft moved to carry out his campaign pledges regarding tariff revision. He convened a special session of Congress less than two weeks after his inauguration. His very brief message calling for revision stressed the necessity of quick action to avoid any interruption of business, but did not provide any particulars about the proposed legislation. There was little doubt that he favored downward revision. While still in the Cabinet, he had made a speech in Bath, Maine in which he articulated that position. The speech had the evident approval of President Roosevelt, who edited what he regarded as Taft‘s ―radical‖ utterances.12 What he told Roosevelt during his Presidential campaign was that ―revision must be a revision downward‖ and ―this revision should be fair and genuine and not a

10

WHT to T.R., October 9 and November 7, 1908. Pringle, Taft, I:402-07. 12 Dunn, Harrison to Harding, II:20-21. 11

106

Richard G. Frederick

mere surface investigation with the interested parties and with nobody to represent the consumers.‖13 Taft‘s guiding principle for changing the tariff was the same one advocated by the National Association of Manufacturers, and a version of it formed a plank in the Republican platform. One NAM official summed it up succinctly: ―every tariff schedule shall measure substantially the permanent differential between the cost of production in foreign countries and that in the United States.‖ Taft looked to party leaders in Congress to achieve this balance with little direction needed from the White House.14 The tariff bill moved through the House under the direction of New York Representative Sereno E. Payne; Senator Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island would guide its passage through the Senate. By the end of June, Taft expressed general satisfaction with the Payne Bill. Although he wished that rates on some of the items were lower, he found the bill to be in line with his ideas and opined that he would pass such an act. He was not so sure about the Senate bill, however. Although he characterized Senator Aldrich, a leading member of the Old Guard, as ―acting in good faith,‖ he thought that there were a number of changes for the worse in the Senate version of the bill, which added some 800 amendments to the House bill. He told brother Horace, a free-trade advocate, that he was content to await the Conference Committee version of the bill, which would incorporate aspects of the House and Senate versions.15 As the summer went along, Taft seemed sanguine about the outcome of the complicated process, playing golf regularly while keeping an eye on the proceedings in Congress. He considered the possibility of a veto, but only as a last resort. Meanwhile, he wined and dined members of Congress, and tried to sell the notion of free or greatly reduced rates on raw materials and commodities such as wool and coal. Through July he wrote lengthy letters dealing with the negotiations to various family members. In typical optimistic fashion, he told Nellie that ―I am dealing with very acute and expert politicians, and I am trusting a great many of them and I may be deceived; but on the whole I have the whip hand.‖16 The Payne-Aldrich tariff which Taft signed on August 5 was very much a compromise measure. The President worked directly with members of the 13

WHT to TR, September 21, 1908. H.E. Miles to Oscar S. Straus, June 12, 1908, Oscar S. Straus Papers, Box 10; Stanley D. Solvick, ―William Howard Taft and the Payne-Aldrich Tariff,‖ Mississippi Valley Historical Review L (December 1963): 428. 15 WHT to Horace Taft, June 27, 1909. 14

The Presidency

107

Conference Committee, and managed to secure many of the reductions he sought, although the final measure was closer to the Aldrich bill than to the House version. Given the fact that his own party was split between high- and low-tariff advocates, Taft viewed the result in a positive light. He explained to his brother Charlie his opinion that ―the result on the whole is a substantial victory for me.‖ He cited reductions in hides, boot and shoes, iron ore, coal and cotton, oil, some leather goods, and shoes. ―The ‗insurgents‘ will vote against the bill probably, but I don‘t think they will make bitter speeches on the subject,‖ he wrote. Later, he characterized the insurgents as being out of touch with the masses, who enjoyed ―remarkable conditions of prosperity and comfort‖ owing to Republican policies.17 He underestimated the divisiveness of the issue among Republicans. In fact, many insurgents would see the tariff as the litmus test of determining whether a congressman stood with the ―special interests‖ or the interests of the people. One of these was Senator Robert M. LaFollette of Wisconsin, who wrote that Taft had ―thrown his scruples to the wind.‖ He and other Midwestern Senators, including Jonathan Dolliver of Iowa and Joseph Bristow of Kansas headed a Progressive bloc that was unafraid of publicly criticizing Taft for tariff and other policies.18 They were particularly incensed when the President delivered a speech on the tariff in Winona, Minnesota on September 17, calling it ―the best tariff bill that the Republican party ever passed.‖19 Senator Dolliver would later compare claims of downward revision of the tariff to those of Dr. Cook‘s discovery of the North Pole: ―each in its own way a unique hoax, and both promptly presented to the favorable notice of the people by the highest official congratulations.‖20 Senator Dolliver would also be involved in the third imbroglio between Taft and the progressives which took place in 1909 and 1910, resulting in a public dispute within the administration and a high-profile firing. The individual at the center of the controversy was Gifford Pinchot, the Chief Forester of the United States, who was a leader of the conservationists during the Roosevelt administration. He was also a member of Teddy‘s tennis cabinet, along with Interior Secretary James Garfield. Pinchot and Garfield 16

WHT to HHT, July 17, 1909. WHT to CPT, August 1, 1909; WHT to Philander Knox, October 24, 1909, Knox Papers, Cont. 9.. 18 Robert M. LaFollette, LaFollette’s Autobiography (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963), pp. 187-95 (quote on p. 192). 19 WHT, Collected Works, III: 167-83 (quote on p. 177). 20 Quoted in Dunn, Harrison to Harding, p. 122. 17

108

Richard G. Frederick

became personal friends and shared many of the same views on land policies, conservation, and politics. This, along with his close ties to the President, allowed Pinchot great latitude in his actions involving land policies normally overseen by the Interior Department, in spite of the fact that he was a Bureau Chief (not a Cabinet member) in the Department of Agriculture. When Taft appointed Richard Ballinger to head the Interior Department, this arrangement began to change. Not only were Ballinger and Taft less indifferent to bureaucratic boundaries than Roosevelt, but there was also a fundamental difference in legal outlook as well. Specifically, they questioned legality of the withdrawal of millions of acres from the private domain for parks and forests under a 1902 water power act, and began to return some of the land protected under Roosevelt to the public domain.21 Former Interior Secretary Garfield, perhaps still miffed over being left out of the Taft Cabinet, met several times with Gifford Pinchot and corresponded with other former allies from the Roosevelt regime. He confided to his diary his impression that Ballinger ―seems to try to undo what I did.‖ In fact, as far as conservation was concerned, Garfield felt that ―The whole tone of the administration is adverse to ours.‖22 Garfield‘s criticism of the administration was largely private. Gifford Pinchot was a different matter. He initially questioned the government‘s handling of land claims in Alaska, a case which dated back to 1906, when Ballinger headed the Reclamation Service. There were charges of wrong-doing in the so-called ―Cunningham claims,‖ which allegedly involved a J.P. Morgan-Guggenheim cabal that was interested in developing rich Alaskan coal fields at the expense of the public. Although the matter had been settled in the Roosevelt administration, an investigation was ordered by Ballinger upon assuming office, to satisfy the charges brought by a young agent in the General Land Office, Louis R. Glavis. When Ballinger accepted a report upholding the claims, Glavis refused to go along, instead appealing to Pinchot and the Forestry Service. Glavis and Ballinger also submitted lengthy reports on the matter to the President, who ultimately defended Ballinger‘s actions. In the end, Glavis aired his charges, was removed from office, and Pinchot launched

21

Donald F. Anderson, William Howard Taft: A Conservative’s Conception of the Presidency (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1973), p. 72. The best treatment of the subject is James Penick, Jr., Progressive Politics and Conservation: The Ballinger-Pinchot Affair (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968). Five boxes (434-38) of papers relating to the ―Ballinger Controversy‖ are found in the Gifford Pinchot Papers. 22 Garfield Diary, vol. 27, June 11, 1909, Garfield Papers, Box 8.

The Presidency

109

a widely-publicized, general attack on what he saw as Ballinger‘s lack of commitment to the Roosevelt policies of conservation. Mining engineer John Hays Hammond, a friend of Taft‘s, later summed up Pinchot‘s position: ―Because Pinchot believed that Ballinger was not carrying out Roosevelt‘s original program, he considered this appointment as treachery to Roosevelt.‖ At Taft‘s request, Hammond met with Pinchot in California and persuaded him to meet personally with the President in September 1909 in Salt Lake City, where Taft was giving a speech as part of his Western tour during the fall. The two men met, with no resolution of differences.23 Shortly after the meeting, Taft spoke in Spokane, Washington on the subject of ―Conservation of National Resources.‖ He outlined a gradualist program, and emphasized the role of Congressional legislation over executive action. He pledged support for Roosevelt‘s policies, while pointing out that ―that pledge does not involve me in any obligation to carry them out unless I have Congressional authority to do so.‖ He also noted that Secretary Ballinger was ―in entire accord with me as to the necessity for promoting in every legitimate way the conservation of the resources which I have named.‖24 What Taft took away from his meeting with Pinchot, was a fairly cogent prediction of what was to follow. ―I am convinced that Pinchot with his fanaticism and his disappointment at my decision in the Ballinger case plans a coup by which I shall be compelled to dismiss him and he will be able to make out a martyrdom and try to raise opposition to me on Ballinger‘s account,‖ he wrote to Helen. In the same revealing letter, he characterized Pinchot as Jesuitical in the strength of his convictions and his guile. He found that Roosevelt and Pinchot shared a common bond that Taft did not –―more of a socialistic tendency.‖ Finally, he was critical of Roosevelt for allowing Pinchot the power ―of controlling both the Interior and the Agriculture Departments.‖ This was anathema to the efficient operation of the government, Taft thought. ―I can‘t for a moment permit that complete demoralization of discipline that follows the reposing of such power in the hands of a subordinate.‖25 Events moved rapidly toward a head during the rest of the year, thanks largely to Pinchot‘s machinations with the press. Based on information from Glavis, Collier’s published a muckraking article in November on the subject, 23

Hammond, II, 556-60 (quote on p. 559). A much later (9/18/1935) memorandum of the talk, based on notes at the time, is in the Pinchot Papers, Box 438. 24 WHT, Collected Works, III:220. 25 WHT to HHT, October 3, 1909.

110

Richard G. Frederick

titled ―The Whitewashing of Ballinger.‖ Pinchot wrote to a slew of public officials and made speeches before conservation groups defending his (and Roosevelt‘s) policies and attacking Ballinger, calling for a Congressional investigation of wrong-doing in his Department. Taft, on the other hand, chose not to reply publicly to these allegations, and insisted that Ballinger also keep mum for the moment. Taft adopted this policy of ―nonpublicity‖ for two reasons. First, he hoped to stave off Pinchot‘s resignation, which would alienate Roosevelt‘s followers. But perhaps as great a consideration was his own belief that seeking publicity was demeaning to the President and his office. As he told his brother Horace, ―we are living in an age of supreme hypocrisy, when the man who can yell loudest against corruption in general has the advantage, and when the man who has the responsibility of affirmative action is at a disadvantage.‖26 The act that compelled Taft to action was an open letter that Pinchot addressed to Senator Dolliver on January 5, 1910. In it, the forester defended the publicity given to the actions of the Interior Department, particularly in the case of the Alaska coal claims. Pinchot intimated strongly that there were reasons why Ballinger and others desired to keep secret from the American public information about ―the source, nature, and progress of claims made for portions of the public lands.‖ He stopped short of actually labeling Ballinger a crook and Taft an inept administrator, but both conclusions could be drawn from the content and tone of the letter. After an agonizing appraisal, which left him ―haggard and careworn,‖ Taft made his decision. The Secretary of Agriculture, James Wilson, Pinchot‘s boss, sent him a terse note informing him of his removal from office on January 7.27 This was far from the end of the matter. Pinchot sent out a letter to supporters proclaiming that, with his firing, ―the lines are being clearly drawn between the special interests and the rest of us in the fight for conservation and the square deal.‖28 Secretary Ballinger demanded a Congressional investigation to clear his name. A joint House-Senate Committee was constituted for the purpose of reviewing the charges brought by Louis Glavis. Republican insurgents in the House would accomplish something they were 26 Stephen Ponder, ―‘Nonpublicity‘ and the Unmaking of a President: William Howard Taft and the Ballinger-Pinchot Controversy of 1909-1910,‖ Journalism History 19 (Winter 1994): 111-20; WHT to Horace Taft, February 1, 1910. 27 Pinchot to Dolliver, January 5, 1910 and Wilson to Pinchot, January 7, 1910, both in Pinchot Papers, Box 435. Taft‘s wrestling with the Pinchot dilemma is reported in Butt, Taft and Roosevelt, II:253-55. 28 Pinchot to William G. Kohout, February 4, 1910, Pinchot Papers, Box 434.

The Presidency

111

unable to earlier: George W. Norris of Nebraska managed a subterfuge by which members of the committee from the House would be elected by the membership rather than appointed by Speaker Cannon.29 Big names would be involved, such as Louis D. Brandeis, the noted Boston attorney hired by Collier’s Weekly magazine to represent Glavis. The question remaining was, of course, what would Roosevelt do? One of his many confidants, Henry Cabot Lodge, rushed off a letter the day of the firing, which took Taft‘s side. ―No President could possibly have tolerated such a letter as Pinchot sent to Dolliver,‖ he wrote. He also thought Pinchot was unwise to be drawn into the orbit of the muckraking magazines and to imperil the Forestry Service by immersion in controversy. A few days later, he reiterated these beliefs and cautioned Roosevelt to say nothing about the case or the entire American political situation until he returned to the United States. Roosevelt‘s response was to the effect that Pinchot was a most valuable public servant whose time was spent ―battling for a high ideal.‖ He invited Pinchot to meet with him in Europe when he sojourned there in March and April, after finishing his African trip.30 Roosevelt‘s meeting with Pinchot sent a distinct message to the press and the public back in the United States. In the emerging split in Republican ranks, it began to appear as if Taft and Roosevelt would take opposite sides. The publicity given the issue centered on this and on Pinchot‘s strong implications that Taft and Ballinger were against the conservation program begun by Roosevelt. While the Congressional investigations did not turn up any wrongdoing by Secretary Ballinger (a judgment echoed by later historians), they nevertheless left the impression that the Taft administration had taken a turn against the tide established by the ever-popular Teddy. The fallout from intraparty rivalry would be reflected in the 1910 Congressional elections. By the beginning of the year, the party rift was clearly visible in Congress. Almost a dozen Senators actively disputed the party leadership on a variety of issues. Most of these were from states west of the Mississippi; among the leaders were Wisconsin‘s Robert M. LaFollette, Joseph L. Bristow and Albert B. Cummins of Kansas, Jonathan Dolliver of Iowa, Coe Crawford of South Dakota, Moses Clapp of Minnesota, and William E. Borah of Idaho. Albert J. Beveridge of Indiana rounded out the list 29

Fighting Liberal: The Autobiography of George W. Norris (New York: Macmillan Company, 1945), chap. xiii. 30 Lodge, ed., Selections, II:356-67; Martin L. Fausold, Gifford Pinchot: Bull Moose Progressive (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1961), pp. 36-37.

112

Richard G. Frederick

of outspoken insurgents in the Senate, who were joined, on and off, by more than 30 members of the House of Representatives.31 The President‘s response to the refusal of party members to support his legislative program and to their open criticism of him was twofold. First, he instructed his Postmaster General, Frank Hitchcock, and other members of the administration to cut patronage for the troublemakers. He followed up with a clear indication of his intention to campaign actively for regular Republicans—those supporting his policies—while withholding his support from the others. What put teeth into this threat was the President‘s control of the Republican congressional campaign committee, a major source of needed funds for reelection efforts. Committee chair William McKinley, a Congressman from Illinois, announced the policy at the beginning of the primary election campaigns.32 Taft‘s actions had two results. The first was a flurry of indignation over the withholding of patronage. The gentlest admonition from the reform side came from William Allen White, whose sage observations in the Emporia, Kansas Gazette were circulated nationally. White wrote Taft that the insurgents were not lined up against him or his policies, but against the decrepit leadership of the Republican party, specifically Cannon in the House and Aldrich in the Senate. ―The movement distinctly is not against you; it is not against your program. But it is against the leadership you are compelled to recognize.‖ He went on to affirm his own friendly attitude toward the administration. But, he noted, he would be favoring candidates who supported insurgency against the Cannon-Aldrich regulars. The explicit warning he gave Taft was that ―The people have begun to confuse you with the leadership [of the party].‖ White, who was something of a bellwether for the Roosevelt faction within the party, was not being disingenuous in his remarks to Taft. He expressed similar opinions when he wrote the ex-President to advise him of the situation as Roosevelt was coming home from Africa and Europe.33 The larger result of the Taft action was its singular lack of effectiveness. In Congress, Speaker Cannon‘s power was limited by the passage of

31

James L. Holt, Congressional Insurgents and the Party System, 1909-1916 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), 1967): pp. 2-6 discusses some of the leading insurgents. Most historians have dissented from Holt‘s view that insurgency was distinct from progressivism. 32 Arthur W. Dunn, From Harrison to Harding: A Personal Narrative, Covering a Third of a Century, 1888-1921 (2 Vols., New York: G.P. Putnam‘s Sons, 1922) II:116; Norman M. Wilensky, Conservatives in the Progressive Era: The Taft Republicans of 1912 (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1965), p. 5.

The Presidency

113

legislation providing for a 15-member Rules Committee which excluded the Speaker. Even though Taft did not take sides in this phase of the anti-Cannon revolt, his earlier lack of support for the cause was taken as an endorsement of the Speaker, and the resultant victory was characterized as one for the other side.34 In the ensuing Congressional primaries, Presidential support lent little weight to a candidate‘s chances, with a large popular outpouring of support for anti-Cannon (and anti-tariff) candidates, especially in the middle-west and western states. Theodore Roosevelt became a factor in the election in the fall. He told Senator Lodge that, while Taft‘s people sought ―a flaming general endorsement‖ of the administration, T.R. felt such an action would antagonize ―my staunchest friends.‖ Instead, he wrote, ―The greatest service I can render to Taft, the service which beyond all others will tend to secure his renomination and to make that renomination of use, is to try to help the Republican Party to win at the polls this Fall, and that I am trying to do.‖35 His main tactic was to swing through the western U.S. in August and September, delivering speeches for Republican candidates. At the same time, he defined his own reform agenda, particularly in a speech at Osawatomie, Kansas on August 31. In his exposition of the ―New Nationalism,‖ which one historian called ―the most radical speech ever given by an ex-president,‖ Roosevelt maintained that the government had sweeping powers to carry out reforms in the ―public interest.‖ He was especially critical of the judiciary‘s checks on legislation and suggested the review of judicial decisions, a principle that Taft later characterized as ―an attack upon our system at the very point where I think it is the strongest.‖36 The combined efforts of the President and the ex-President could not bring about a Republican victory in the Congressional campaign. The party‘s majority of 47 in the House in the 61st Congress, elected in 1908, disappeared in a Democratic avalanche, which gave that party a 67-seat majority in the coming Congress. The Republicans maintained a slimmer control of the Senate, with a shift of 10 seats to the Democrats. Democratic governors were 33

Walter Johnson, ed., Selected Letters of Wiliam Allen White 1899-1943 (New York: Greenwood Press, 1968), pp. 105-06, 110-12. 34 See, for example, James R. Garfield Diary, March 19, 1910, Vol. 28, Garfield Papers, Box 9; cf. James E. Watson, As I Knew Them: Memoirs of James E. Watson, Former United States Senator from Indiana (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1936), pp. 114-25. 35 Roosevelt to Lodge, July 19, 1910, Selections from the Correspondence II:385. 36 George Mowry, Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement (New York: Hill and Wang, 1960), p. 144; WHT to Elihu Root, October 14, 1910, Root Papers, Box 166.

114

Richard G. Frederick

elected in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, and, distinctly disturbing to the President, Ohio. Excuses flew through the G.O.P. ranks, but the result could not be argued away. There was some truth in Taft‘s half-joking remark upon viewing the results: ―I should say it was not only a landslide but a tidal wave and holocaust all rolled into one general cataclysm.‖37

PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSES Historians have resolutely refused to rate the Taft Presidency as ―below average.‖ In spite of his relative ineffectiveness as the leader of a unified party, Taft was the author of several important successes. Some of these, such as trust regulation, were the result of executive action, i.e. legal actions by the Attorney General against selected companies seen as violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. But there were also legislative triumphs, in which Taft exerted a measure of leadership of a divided Congress. In doing so, he displayed a sometimes curious mixture of stubbornness, forceful resolution, and the ability to seek compromise solutions. One area in which Taft characterized himself as a reformer involved the organization of government agencies, which ultimately impacted federal spending and the budgetary process. In discussing the need for more economy in government in his inaugural address, he was referring to the fact that the federal government had been operating with a deficit for most of the new century, and there was little, if any, existing machinery to address the problem. Government agencies and responsibilities had grown in a slapdash fashion as the industrial economy burgeoned during the late 19th Century. Taft emphasized the problem in his address to Congress in December 1909, when he labeled the gap between revenues and expenditures ―Perhaps the most important question presented to this Administration.‖ In the same address, he discussed how the administration was taking on the problem. He asked each department head to prepare estimates of spending for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1911, with a view towards paring down budgets wherever possible. There were two kinds of economies involved in the process, he said. First was a permanent reduction through the application of more efficient measures. Second was ―a postponement of projects and improvements that ultimately will have to be carried out, but which are now delayed with the hope that 37

Butt, Taft and Roosevelt, II:556.

The Presidency

115

additional revenue in the future will permit their execution without producing a deficit.‖ He claimed that the process, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury, would produce a surplus of $35,931,000, compared to a deficit of over $73,000,000 estimated for the current fiscal year.38 Taft‘s estimate may have seemed optimistic, but he was clearly attacking the problem of centralized control of the budget with vigor. Unfortunately, Congress, which had to approve any budget requests from the Executive branch, was unimpressed. Nevertheless, at Taft‘s urging, Congress did appropriate $100,000 for the creation of a commission to study budgetary efficiency and economy in governmental operations. Taft‘s able secretary, Charles D. Norton, a former assistant secretary of the Treasury, sought advice from ―efficiency experts‖ and advised hiring Frederick A. Cleveland, the technical director of Frederick W. Taylor‘s Bureau of Municipal Research, to lead the effort. The Commission on Economy and Efficiency would function through the Taft Presidency as a budget clearinghouse for Taft‘s department heads and produce a detailed ―Report on Economy and Efficiency in Government‖ in 1912.39 Taft‘s work met resistance not only from Congress, where many leaders were concerned that their prerogatives in the budgeting process might be curtailed, but also from members of the administration, who feared losing some fiscal autonomy and, in efficiency moves, offices and personnel. In April 1912, he asked Congress for a third annual appropriation for continuing the work of the Commission and publishing the report; he would receive monies for the work to run to the end of his presidency in 1913, but Congress would not approve an executive budget prepared under the guidelines the Commission established.40 Dealing with his own Cabinet officials on the subject was also challenging. He had a sharp exchange with Secretary of the Treasury Franklin MacVeagh, and felt that others were not as assiduous in carrying out their charges as they might have been. In October of 1912, for example, he advised his Secretary of the Interior to ―not allow your

38

Collected Works of WHT, III:369-71. Samuel Haber, Efficiency and Uplift: Scientific Management in the Progressive Era, 18901920 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), pp. 114-15; Peri E. Arnold, Making the Managerial Presidency: Comprehensive Reorganization Planning, 1905-1980 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), pp. 29-32. 40 Ibid., pp. 45-46. 39

116

Richard G. Frederick

subordinates, through jealousy or any other motive, to criticize and interfere with the getting up of the data for such a budget.‖41 The Commission‘s recommendations included large-scale organizational changes as well as procedural changes in regard to greater executive branch control of the budget process. While its impact was not felt during the Taft administration or the following presidency of Woodrow Wilson, it was a significant step toward the modern management of governmental operations. In the short term, state governments benefited most from the model, with at least 16 states following Wisconsin‘s lead before World War I in adopting executive leadership of centralized administrative control bureaus. In 1921, the federal Bureau of the Budget was incorporated in the Budget and Accounting Act of that year. Administrative reforms would continue in the 1920s and 1930s, which would reflect the Commission‘s 1912 recommendations. One historian concluded that Taft‘s budget plan ―contributed more to the power of the modern presidency than almost any other administrative development of the period.‖ Incidentally, using his idea of executive budget management allowed Taft to accrue an $86 million surplus, wiping out the $58 million deficit he inherited from the previous administration.42 Other issues required a degree of cooperation with Congressional insurgents, and resulted in the passage of legislation which satisfied neither Taft nor the progressives completely, but which each side claimed credit for enacting. A case in point was the Mann-Elkins Act of June, 1910. Since the 1906 passage of the Hepburn Act, which strengthened the Interstate Commerce Commission in many respects, reformers had insisted on the necessity of enacting further laws to curb the overwhelming power of the nation‘s railroads. The President concurred by directing Attorney General Wickersham to prepare a bill to submit to Congress early in 1910. Taft addressed the matter in a message to Congress in January, in which he stressed the feature of the bill which most appealed to his legalistic view of handling interstate commerce matters -- the creation of a ―United States Court of Commerce‖ to handle disputes arising over the rulings of the I.C.C. This would be a means, he said, of ensuring ―an effective, systematic, and scientific enforcement of the commerce law,‖ in contrast to the present system of appeals to the federal courts.43 41

WHT to Walter L. Fisher, October 20, 1912, Walter Lowrie Fisher Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Box 13. 42 Anderson, William Howard Taft, p. 90. 43 Collected Works of WHT, III:409-10.

The Presidency

117

The bill outraged the Congressional insurgents, who saw it as a weak piece of legislation that better served the interests of the railroads than those of the public. As originally written, the Elkins Act did not seem to strengthen substantially the Interstate Commerce Commission, especially in the matter of establishing equitable rates. It allowed for limited merger agreements, which went against the spirit of the Sherman Act. Furthermore, the bill‘s opponents argued that the Commerce Court might well become a conservative body with the power to usurp the functions of the Interstate Commerce Commission by overturning its rulings in favor of the railroad corporations. Robert M. LaFollette later characterized the act as ―the rankest, boldest betrayal of public interest ever proposed in any legislative body.‖44 Months of political wrangling followed the introduction of the act, resulting in its rewriting by the Justice Department, the introduction of dozens of amendments by opponents, such as LaFollette and Cummins, and a deal with Congressional Democrats, in which their votes for the bill were traded for Republican support for the admission of Arizona and New Mexico to statehood.45 President Taft followed the Congressional deliberations carefully, commenting often on strategies and tactics in his correspondence. He confided to his brother Horace in March that he had high hopes for some pending legislation, which included the Elkins Bill and a measure to establish postal savings banks, in spite of stiff opposition from a handful of Senators. ―Their method of defeat is to attempt to load down the legislation with measures so extremely radical that the sensible members of Congress won‘t vote for them, or that I shall have to veto them if they come to me,‖ he wrote. This happened with the postal savings banks bill, which passed with some ―limitations that I would prefer not to have in it.‖ The bright side, though, in reference to the Elkins Act, was that ―we beat Cummins and his crowd and we can do it again, I think.‖46 The Mann-Elkins Act, which passed the Senate in June 1910, was a compromise measure which both sides lauded. The insurgents had successfully removed many of the objectionable aspects of the original bill. In addition, the new law gave the I.C.C. the right to suspend new railroad rates for long periods of time while it completed hearings on the rates. For his part, Taft had the Commerce Court, which had been his major goal. One historian of railroad 44

Quoted in Gabriel Kolko, Railroads and Regulation, 1877-1916 (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1970), p. 186. 45 Ibid., pp. 183-95; Mowry, Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement, pp. 98-103. 46 WHT to Horace Taft, March 5, 1910.

118

Richard G. Frederick

regulation concluded that the Act essentially represented ―the administrative consolidation of the principles of the Hepburn Act on rate matters, and not as a radical departure along new lines.‖47 This is consistent with Lewis Gould‘s cogent observation that Taft‘s conception of his task as president was not ―to extend and expand what Roosevelt had advocated, but to administer efficiently and thoroughly the legislation and policies already in effect.‖48 Such an outlook would extend to antitrust policies as well. For many progressives, the campaign against corporate greed was the great crusade of the early 20th Century. Real enforcement of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 began in the Roosevelt administration in a case against a holding company that was purchasing Chicago railroads; in 1904 the Supreme Court upheld lower court actions in ordering the breakup of the Northern Securities Company. Roosevelt‘s outlook in initiating additional suits against illegal corporate activities was more moderate than that of some contemporaries. He wrote Taft about his views as early as 1901, explaining his belief that the federal government had the power to regulate corporations, but needed to exercise this authority ―with the utmost caution and self-restraint.‖49 This would lead TR to pursue antitrust actions in a total of 44 cases from 1902-1908. His aim was not to dissolve all huge American corporations, but to rein in those engaged in unfair methods of competition. In the absence of a law specifically distinguishing between ―good‖ trusts and ―bad‖ trusts, Roosevelt and his Justice Department would make the determination. As a member of Roosevelt‘s cabinet, Taft was involved to some extent in these activities. In a 1906 antitrust case against Standard Oil, for example, he was asked by the Attorney General to review a public statement about the case, indicating his awareness of the issues involved.50 A few months later, he wrote to the President about ―the aggressiveness of greed and defiant corporate capitalism‖ and extolled Roosevelt‘s ―desire and your power to curb and reduce to legal bounds these capitalist law breakers.‖51 In his own administration, Taft and Attorney General Wickersham would conscientiously apply the law in a less discriminate fashion than Roosevelt to produce more than twice as many prosecutions in a single term in office (90 for Taft to 44 for 47

Kolko, Railroads and Regulation, p. 193. Gould, Reform and Regulation, p. 108. 49 TR to WHT, July 15, 1901. 50 WHT to William H. Moody, June 21, 1906, William Moody Papers, Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress, Cont. 14. 51 WHT to TR, November 4, 1906. 48

The Presidency

119

Roosevelt over seven years). In doing so, Taft undermined his popularity among business interests who were normally inclined to support Republican politicians. By undertaking a case against United States Steel, he also finalized the growing split between himself and Theodore Roosevelt.52 The Taft-era prosecutions were varied, and included some of the largest businesses in the country, such as giants like U.S. Steel, International Harvester, and General Electric. He explained to many of his contemporaries his conviction that the law was straightforward and should be applied across the board in order to end monopoly and restore competition. While some of his private statements on the matter were ambiguous, he attempted to define his position in a speech he made at a Republican gathering in New York City in February 1910, where he addressed his administration‘s enactment of the party‘s 1908 platform promises. ―The principle of the anti-trust law,‖ he stated, ―is that those engaged in modern business, especially of manufacture and transportation, shall pursue the policy with respect to their competitors of ‗Live and let live,‘ and that they shall not use the bigness of their concerns to frighten exclusive patronage from customers and eliminate smaller concerns from competition and thus control output and fix prices.‖ In the same speech, Taft differentiated himself from radicals, who would break up all corporations. Unlike them, his actions were grounded in solid legal principles, and were directed, like Theodore Roosevelt‘s, only against the ―aggressions of corporate greed.‖53 After the speech, he told his brother Henry that there was nothing particularly new in his remarks, but that they received much attention because ―It had been heralded that I was going to give assurance to Wall Street that business was not going to be troubled.‖ He was delighted by the positive attention he received for his statements, agreeing with his brother‘s opinion that ―Wall Street, as an aggregation, is the biggest ass that I have run across.‖54 Many of the largest suits, such as the two settled in the Supreme Court in 1911 against American Tobacco and Standard Oil, had been initiated in the Roosevelt years and continued under Taft and Wickersham. A notable exception was United States Steel. In the middle of a financial panic in 1907, 52

See James C. German, Jr., ―The Taft Administration and the Sherman Antitrust Act,‖ MidAmerica 54 (July 1972): 172-86. Martin J. Sklar explores at length the differences between the Taft and Roosevelt approaches. See his The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 1890-1916 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), especially chap. 5. 53 Collected Works of WHT, III:450-63 (quotes on pp. 460, 461). Taft was also pushing for a federal incorporation law, which he would not be successful in implementing. 54 WHT to Henry Taft, February 21, 1910.

120

Richard G. Frederick

and after conferring at the White House with Elbert Gary and Henry Frick, directors of the steel corporation, President Roosevelt had tacitly agreed to a buyout of a smaller competitor, the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company by U.S. Steel, in a move designed to avert a stock market collapse. What seemed a reasonable course of action to T.R. at the time would be seen in a less favorable light after the crisis was over and the value of the Tennessee company‘s assets made the hurried deal look more like a steal than a bargain.55 No antitrust suits were filed against the steel giant during the Roosevelt administration. Continuing pressure from Congress, beginning early in 1909, helped push Taft and Wickersham into first investigating, then initiating a lawsuit against U.S. Steel in October of 1911. Included in the charges was specific reference to the 1907 purchase of Tennessee Coal and Iron. Roosevelt was mentioned by name. Taft became aware of this only after the petition had been filed. When he asked for an explanation, the special assistant in charge of the case explained that mention had been made of T.R. specifically in an attempt to claim that he was not fully aware of the particulars of the deal being made by U.S. Steel in 1907. In other words, the ex-President had been duped. Roosevelt was enraged at what he saw as Taft‘s duplicity, telling James R. Garfield that Taft was present at several Cabinet meetings where the matter was discussed, and was ―enthusiastic in his praise of what was done.‖ He thought both Taft and Wickersham were ―playing small, mean and foolish politics in this matter.‖56 Publicly, Roosevelt would publish his side of the matter in an article in the Outlook, in which he flayed the antitrust efforts of the Taft administration. This would be the final act in rupturing the friendship between the two men and bringing about the Roosevelt candidacy in 1912.57 In his first three years as President, Taft could (and would) lay claim to the role of reformer. He saw positive actions on the tariff and railroad legislation, his antitrust prosecutions resulted in several important victories in the courts (though ironically not in the U.S. Steel case), he successfully backed legislation creating postal savings banks, and he pushed several measures for economy and efficiency in government, including Civil Service reform. He obtained Congressional approval for conservation measures that protected 55

H.W. Brands, TR: The Last Romantic (New York: Basic Books, 1997), pp. 602-05; James C. German, Jr., ―Taft, Roosevelt, and United States Steel,‖ The Historian 34 (August 1972): 59899. 56 TR to James R. Garfield, October 31, 1911, Garfield Papers, Box 19; German, ―Taft, Roosevelt, and United States Steel,‖ pp. 605-09; Burton, Taft, Roosevelt, pp. 92-93. 57 Mowry, Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement, pp. 191-95.

The Presidency

121

public land by removing it from sale to private interests. In fact, he withdrew nearly as much land as his predecessor, who was hailed as the great wilderness protector. But even Taft‘s victories came at a cost. Faced with a deepening split in his party, his attempts to play both sides were seldom successful, and he was forced more and more to depend on the established leadership of the G.O.P. to accomplish what reforms he could. As one historian of the Taft presidency observed, ―It was not the reforms that he demanded but the persistent fumbling in his attempts to achieve them that alienated Republican progressives and stimulated LaFollette and his small band to form a third party.‖58

FOREIGN AFFAIRS Upon entering office, President Taft would doubtless have considered himself well-versed in international affairs. He had traveled widely, both in Europe and Asia, and had an extended residency in the Far East. As Roosevelt‘s trouble-shooter, he had visited sites in Central America and the Caribbean, as well as stopovers in Japan and Hong Kong. He had managed the affairs of several of these places, at least on an interim basis. However, he would find there were major differences in dealing with other countries as Governor-General of Secretary of War. In the earlier instances, he had been the man in charge, both in the Philippines and briefly in Cuba. As Secretary of War, Taft dealt with officials in Panama that were answerable to him. As President, his power was less direct and was tempered by the United States Senate. Any treaties negotiated by his administration needed the approval of the Senate, which sometimes necessitated political action on Taft‘s part, a situation with which he was not entirely comfortable. One example concerned trade reciprocity with Canada, a matter that was both a foreign policy issue and one which dealt with the always-inflammatory tariff. This was not a matter which Taft and the State Department could finesse without Congressional approval, since it was a revenue bill and Congress had to ―give its assent and pass legislation carrying [such an agreement between governments] into effect,‖ according to a State Department memorandum.59 Taft‘s notion was to effect, as much as possible, a policy of free trade with 58 59

Coletta, Presidency of WHT, p. 140. Memorandum from Office of the Counselor, Department of State, October 18, 1910, Knox Papers, Cont. 11.

122

Richard G. Frederick

Canada by creating exceptions to the Payne-Aldrich Tariff. State Department officials traveled to Ottawa late in 1910 to discuss the agreement; in January 1911, Canadian officials arrived in Washington to finish negotiations. At the end of the month, the President sent a special message to Congress explaining the benefits such an agreement would bring to both sides. While much of his statement was political verbiage about close neighborly relations and continued goodwill, Taft also claimed that economic benefits would accrue to both sides through greatly expanded trade. Secretary Knox similarly declared the matter an economic, not a political one, in an address before a group of Chicago businessmen in February.60 The essence of the agreement was an exchange of manufactured goods from the United States for farm goods and lumber from Canada. As such, it aroused significant opposition in the farm belt states of the Midwest, states where the Republican insurgency was strongest. The bill passed in the lameduck session of the House in early 1911, with lukewarm Republican support and strong backing from Democrats, who viewed it as the sort of tarifflowering measure advocated by their party. It never came to a vote in the Senate. Believing strongly in the inherent benefits of the program, Taft invoked the ―mutual needs of the people of the two countries‖ in calling a special session of the newly-elected Sixty-second Congress to consider the act. This time, the bill passed both houses, with considerable support from the Democrats, who constituted a majority of the Congress. After all the political wrangling, however, the deal fell apart when it was rejected in the Canadian legislature.61 Other foreign policy ventures proved more fruitful. This was in part due to a rise in efficiency in the State Department. Taft and Secretary Knox held similar beliefs on the need for more professionalization of what had been a rather hit-and-miss operation in earlier administrations. Knox petitioned Congress for $100,000 for a sweeping program of reorganization, which was voted through in August 1909. The actual plan was not Knox‘s, but had largely been authored by the time the Taft administration began by a young Chicagoan, Francis M. Huntington-Wilson, who had seen diplomatic service in the Far East and served Knox as Assistant Secretary of State. He had already successfully lobbied for the creation of a Far Eastern Department, and 60

Collected Works of WHT, IV:104-10; ―Reciprocity with Canada—Address of Hon. Philander C. Knox.‖ Address before the Chicago Association of Commerce, February 15, 1911. Printed March 3, 1911, House of Representatives, 61st Cong., 3d sess., Document No. 1418. 61 Taft‘s brief message is in Collected Works of WHT, IV:115-16; the best coverage of the subject is L. E. Ellis, Reciprocity, 1911 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1939).

The Presidency

123

the reorganization under Knox would bring more compartmentalization into the State Department with special areas for Latin-American, Europe, and the Near East. He began a training program for consular officials, and a merit system for advancement. The plan also called for a Division of Information, which would be responsible for drawing up and circulating reports on foreign affairs issues. Finally, in keeping with the new policy direction that Taft and Knox hoped to follow, two foreign trade experts were added to the Bureau of Trade Relations.62 The main policy focus of the Taft Presidency was a change of direction from the ―Big Stick‖ policies of the Roosevelt years to a less interventionist approach that stressed economic cooperation with emerging nations. While this policy was quickly dubbed ―dollar diplomacy‖ by critics in the press, Taft and Knox did not hesitate to defend this approach to the Far East and Latin America. Critics may have characterized it as economic imperialism, but the administration saw it differently and discussed it openly. It was the way that the great European powers had always operated, they claimed, not in the negative sense of oppressing the smaller countries, but for the greater good of their own manufacturing, commercial, and shipping interests. In a public address in 1911, Huntington-Wilson succinctly defined the policy and its benefits. ―It means using the capital of the country in the foreign field in a manner calculated to enhance fixed national interests,‖ he stated. ―It means the substitution of dollars for bullets.‖63 Even earlier, in an internal memo, the Assistant Secretary had tied reorganization of the Department to the support of commercial interests by the government. ―Today diplomacy works for trade,‖ he declared.64 Taft made a major address on the subject on May 2, 1910. Speaking for himself and Secretary Knox, he began by stating their forthright belief that diplomacy and commerce were intertwined. He then defined the benefits of such a link: ―We believe it to be of the utmost importance that while our foreign policy should not be turned a hair‘s breadth from the straight path of justice, it may be well made to include active intervention to secure for our merchandise and our capitalists opportunity for profitable investment which shall insure to the benefit of both countries concerned. There is nothing 62

Francis M. Huntington-Wilson, Memoirs of an Ex-Diplomat (Boston: Little, Brown, 1945), chap. xxv. 63 ―Mr. Huntington-Wilson‘s Address at Baltimore, May 4, 1911,‖ in Knox Papers, Cont. 14. 64 7-pp. untitled memorandum, dated ―1909, Mar.‖ in ibid., Cont. 6.

124

Richard G. Frederick inconsistent in the promotion of peaceful relations and the promotion of trade relations, and if the protection which the United States shall assume to her citizens in the assertion of just rights under investment made in foreign countries shall promote the amount of such investments and stimulate and enlarge the business relations, it is a result to be commended.‖

Other countries gave similar guarantees to their merchants, he claimed, and the United States should do the same, in spite of some narrow-minded criticism of ―dollar diplomacy.‖ After all, the benefits would not be measured in ―the profits of our capitalists but by the broad national advantages to be expected.‖65 Taft and Knox did not contemplate investment of capital on the part of the United States government. The dollars in ―dollar diplomacy‖ had the government one step removed, with private capital to be invested abroad. The government would provide the diplomacy. An example of the policy occurred late in 1909, in relation to the Ottoman Empire. Secretary Knox instructed the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey to attempt to secure from the Turkish government ―the placing with a responsible American company of the contract for the construction of a railway system in Asiatic Turkey.‖ The quid pro quo for the Turks? ―You will assure the Ottoman Government of the happy effect upon all phases of the relations between the United States and the Ottoman Empire,‖ Knox wrote.66 The State Department may have supported commercial interests in the Ottoman Empire and all over the globe, but the primary areas of interest in the Taft years were the Far East, particularly China, and Latin America, especially the Caribbean. The policy of the Open Door in China had been set by Secretary John Hay in the McKinley administration. In a pair of statements, the United States articulated what was little more than a sentiment favoring Chinese self-rule and territorial integrity in the face of imperialist challenges from powers in the area, such as Russia and Japan, and Europeans with similar tendencies, including Britain, France, and Germany. What developed in the following decade was a series of moves by several of the powers to establish spheres of influence in parts of China. The Roosevelt administration had largely acceded to these moves, preferring a balance of power in the area over the domination of a single nation such as Japan or Russia. This led to Roosevelt‘s mediation in the Russo-Japanese War and to his later agreement, based on discussions

65

―The President‘s Speech at the Americus Club, May 2, 1910,‖ ibid., Cont. 10.

The Presidency

125

between Japanese officials and Secretary of War Taft, to allow Japan special access to Korea in return for recognizing U.S. interests in the Philippines.67 Taft and Knox would attempt to extend the Open Door through commercial transactions. To carry out their policies, they first appointed a Chicago businessman, Charles R. Crane, as minister to China in place of career diplomat William Rockhill. Unfortunately, the appointment turned sour before Crane left the United States for his new mission. There were belated concerns about his outlook on Eastern questions in general and Crane was indiscreet in discussing his mission with the press. This led to his recall to Washington from San Francisco, where he was about to sail. Taft was on the West Coast and met with Crane. The Minister did not make a favorable impression. Taft found he had ―inordinate conceit and expansive vanity,‖ and told Knox that his removal was probably a good thing, since ―some how or other he had gotten the impression that he was charged with carrying out an independent policy in China to be shaped by himself.‖68 Crane resigned his post in October, 1909. The first attempt to influence Chinese affairs involved American participation in a multi-national loan to China for the building of the Hukuang Railroad, a major enterprise intended to connect several provinces in the Yangtze Valley. Under the leadership of J.P. Morgan and Company, a consortium of bankers known as the American Group was formed in June of 1909. When financiers from Great Britain, Germany, and France were reluctant to allow the Americans to share in the deal, President Taft intervened with an appeal to the Chinese government. He corresponded with the Prince Regent directly, assuring him that his ―intense personal interest‖ was ―in making the use of American capital in the development of China an instrument for the promotion of the welfare of China‖ while guaranteeing China‘s territorial integrity and right to self-government.69 The ploy worked and the Morgan-led group became part of the consortium. Two years later, the group authorized a six-million dollar loan for railroad construction, and a much 66

Philander C. Knox to Oscar S. Straus (tel.) December 28, 1909, Oscar S. Straus Papers, Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress, Box 12. 67 Coletta, Presidency of William Howard Taft, p. 192. 68 WHT to Philander Knox, October 24, 1909, Knox Papers, Cont. 9. The Crane affair is covered in James Randolph Roebuck, Jr., ―The United States and East Asia 1909-1913: A Study of the Far Eastern Diplomacy of William Howard Taft,‖ Valley Forge Journal 6 (December 1993): 193-202. 69 Quoted in Julius W. Pratt, America and World Leadership, 1900-1921 (London: Collier Books, 1970), p. 72.

126

Richard G. Frederick

larger amount intended for the stabilization of the Chinese currency. Both projects were stalled, however, by the nationalist revolution which erupted in China in 1911, resulting in the overthrow of the Manchu dynasty.70 Taft and Knox attempted to affect China‘s territorial rights more directly with a move launched late in 1909 to ―neutralize‖ railroads in the Chinese territory of Manchuria, where both Russia and Japan had established separate spheres of influence. Both countries had built railroads in Manchuria, which gave them special interests in the area. The United States proposed loans to the Chinese to enable them to buy out both countries and to build additional lines in the huge Manchurian territory with foreign capital. Both the Russians and the Japanese responded strongly and negatively to the neutralization idea, which died as a consequence.71 None of the Taft-Knox initiatives proved successful in making the Open Door policy more viable. The neutralization plan had no positive effect on China and served to draw Russia and Japan into closer accord on territorial acquisitions in China.72 When Woodrow Wilson took office, he made it clear to the bankers that he would not pursue the policy. This was actually a relief to the bankers, for whom ―Taft‘s China venture yielded neither political nor material profit,‖ according to J.P. Morgan‘s biographer.73 Theodore Roosevelt was also not enamored of the Administration‘s ventures in the area, particularly the neutralization scheme. Early in 1909, he sent Knox a lengthy message on the importance of understanding the delicacy of JapaneseAmerican relations. Show ―courtesy and consideration‖ in dealings with Japan, he counseled. As Taft left office in 1913, T.R. declared that ―The situation between ourselves and Japan is not nice, owing to the folly of Taft and Knox.‖74 Latin American affairs differed from those in Asia in that the United States was dealing with countries in the Western Hemisphere, and had few concerns about other powerful nations in the region. The Open Door was the key concept in Eastern diplomacy for the U.S., but the Monroe Doctrine closed the door closer to home. While the United States was looking to 70

The history of the consortium and the loan projects are covered thoroughly in Walter V. Scholes and Marie V. Scholes, The Foreign Policies of the Taft Administration (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1970), chap. ix. 71 Ibid., chap. x; Roebuck, Jr., ―United States and East Asia,‖ pp. 186-219. 72 Ibid., pp. 324-25. 73 Jean Strouse, Morgan: American Financier (New York: Random House, 1999), p. 615. 74 Roosevelt to Philander C. Knox, February 8, 1909, Knox Papers, Cont. 6; Roosevelt to Oscar S. Straus, May 19, 1913, Straus Papers, Box 13.

The Presidency

127

advance economic interests in Asia, the drive in the Western Hemisphere was in the direction of hegemonic control, particularly in the Caribbean. In this sense, the policies of the Taft Administration were in line with those of McKinley and Roosevelt before and Wilson, who came after.75 Nevertheless, dollar diplomacy was applied to Central America and the Caribbean during Secretary Knox‘s tenure. But it was applied in a firmer manner, which included the possibility of direct intervention by the United States in the affairs of the countries involved. Knox‘s approach to Latin America was paternalistic. He stated that the goal of the United States was to help these countries progress toward stable governments ―by assisting them to meet their just obligations and to keep out of trouble.‖76 More recently, a diplomatic historian opined that Knox ―was at his worst with Latin-American diplomats, for he had a low opinion of their countries and made no effort to conceal it.‖77 His chief aide HuntingtonWilson was no better. Citing the problems of the Latin American republics, he claimed that ―There was every disposition to respect every American republic; but, if it would be respected, a government must act respectably.‖78 To Knox and Huntington-Wilson, as to President Taft, the instability in these nations caused them to act in ways that were nor respectable. The key to political stability was economic success. A cycle of revolutions and interventions by European powers anxious to retrieve their investments had marked the past decades in Central America. Knox‘s solution was to effect progress ―by regulating their monetary system, and by placing the customs under the management of a competent official from outside.‖79 Such an arrangement had been made in the Dominican Republic during the Roosevelt administration, with the cooperation of the Dominican government. It was seen as effective in restoring economic stability there, until the death of the President in 1911. At the suggestion of Alvey Adee, a long-time State Department official, Knox tendered a similar offer to the Hondurans, who 75

Richard H. Collins, ―Symbiosis Versus Hegemony: New Directions in the Foreign Relations Historiography of Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft,‖ Diplomatic History 19 (Summer, 1995): 474-75. 76 Quoted in Herbert F. Wright, ―Philander Chase Knox,‖ in Samuel Flagg Bemis, ed., The American Secretaries of State and Their Diplomacy (10 Vols., New York: Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1963), 9: 335. 77 David Healy, Drive to Hegemony: The United States in the Caribbean, 1898-1917 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988), p. 146. 78 Huntington-Wilson, Memoirs of an Ex-Diplomat, p. 146. 79 Quoted in Healy, Drive to Hegemony, p. 149.

128

Richard G. Frederick

agreed. At the same time, with the urging of the State Department, New York bankers made a deal with the Hondurans for a $10 million loan. Both arrangements foundered with the Senate‘s refusal to pass the treaty with Honduras (the Honduran Senate also refused to ratify) and a subsequent revolution which squelched the loan agreement.80 The U.S. Senate also turned down a treaty with Nicaragua. The instability there began with a revolt against the government of Jose Santos Zelaya in 1909, with the United States favoring the cause of the insurgents, led by Juan B. Estrada. When Estrada‘s group won (with the active assistance of the United States) and established a government, Knox negotiated the ―KnoxCastrillo Convention,‖ which provided for the refinancing of Nicaragua‘s debts by U.S. bankers. Repayment of the loans would be made through customs receipts to be collected ―by a third party approved by the President of the United States.‖81 When Taft submitted the Nicaragua and Honduras treaties for Senate approval, he prophesied that the former ―should accomplish a lasting goal of inestimable benefit to the prosperity, commerce, and peace of the Republic.‖82 Although the Senate refused to ratify either treaty, private banking interests in the United States moved to shore up the country financially. The Estrada government proved to be unpopular, however, and he was forced to resign. This brought further civil unrest, military intervention by the United States, and a virtual protectorate status for Nicaragua by late 1912.83 Taft regarded dollar diplomacy as ―an extension of the Monroe Doctrine and a way to secure the Panama Canal,‖ according to one recent account, ―and he was pleased that the American bankers were ‗willing to lend a helping hand.‘‖84 In his own words, he referred in 1912 to the ―policy of friendship and assistance we have been pursuing in respect to those countries‖ in a letter instructing Secretary Knox to travel throughout Central America and the Caribbean.85 Knox made the trip, though he was not received with enthusiasm in all the countries he visited. After encountering some anti-American protests in Managua, he disclaimed any intention of the United States to acquire ―an 80

Scholes and Scholes, Foreign Policies of the Taft Administration, chap. iv. Thomas M. Leonard, Central America and the United States: The Search for Stability (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991), pp. 61-63 (quote on p. 63). 82 Collected Works of WHT, IV: 182. 83 Healy, Drive to Hegemony, pp. 155-60. 84 Leonard, Central America and the United States, p. 68. 85 WHT to Philander Knox, February 10, 1912, Knox Papers, Cont. 16. 81

The Presidency

129

inch of territory south of the Rio Grande.‖ He went on to define the ―full measure and extent of our policy‖ as assisting in the maintenance of republican institutions in the republics of the Western Hemisphere.86 The southern nation closest to the United States was not spared from problems of instability during the period. Mexico would be wracked with revolution during the Taft administration, after years of relative quiescence under the benevolent dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz, who assumed power in the late 1870s. Taft visited with Diaz along the Mexican border in the autumn of 1909 and found the old statesman intelligent and able. A year later, however, insurrection broke out in several provinces, which would lead to the overthrow of the Diaz government in 1911. After hearing a pessimistic report from the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, Taft ordered the mobilization of troops along the border. His interest, he assured the Mexican government, was to police the territory. In fact, he was concerned about the 70,000 American citizens living there, as well as the huge investment of American capital in the country.87 He was right to worry. After the reins of government were assumed by Francisco Madero and his followers, civil insurrection continued in many parts of the country, some with a distinctly anti-American flavor. For the next two years, Taft was pressured by corporate interests with Mexican holdings, particularly oil companies, to intervene with military force. However, as he told Oscar S. Straus, he refused to be forced into intervention ―until conditions are such as to leave no doubt in the minds of people that intervention ought to be undertaken and then by Congressional direction. The burdensome consequences of such action no one appreciates more than I do.‖88 When Madero was overthrown and he and his vice-president were assassinated, Taft continued to counsel caution. He favored the de facto recognition of General Victoriano Huerta, who assumed power in February 1913, but left the matter to his successor. Woodrow Wilson, of course, would take a different approach and become embroiled in the miasma of Mexican political conditions. Dollar diplomacy in Latin America was, in theory, designed to benefit the subject countries as well as the United States. The actual result was that neither saw great benefits from the policy during the period. As historians Walter and Marie Scholes have pointed out, this led to more hostility towards the United States from countries south of the border. ―Diplomatic support of 86

Quoted in Wright, ―Philander Chase Knox,‖ pp. 339-40. WHT to Philander C. Knox, March 11, 1911 and to General Leonard Wood, March 12, 1911, both in Knox Papers, Cont. 13; Pringle, Taft, II: 700-03. 88 WHT to Oscar S. Straus, May 6, 1911, Straus Papers, Box 12. 87

130

Richard G. Frederick

private capital meant that the Latin Americans had to conform to the idea that what was good for the United States was good for Latin America,‖ they wrote.89 Aside from Mexico, where Taft showed considerable restraint, the United States was also willing to intervene actively, sometimes with troops, to influence the political and economic structures of other countries. The final facet of Taft-Knox diplomacy was directed mainly at the European nations. This was a proposal for a series of ―arbitration treaties‖ among nations as an effective barrier against wars. It grew directly from Taft‘s interest in the peace movement, which stressed appealing venues such as international courts of arbitration and the like. With Taft‘s love of judicial processes, such ideas were irresistible. He made several speeches in 1910 in support of the treaties, and managed to negotiate acceptable agreements with Britain and France, although Germany opted out. The treaties were favorably regarded by, among others, Andrew Carnegie and Pope Pius X.90 When the treaties were signed (August 3, 1911) and sent to the Senate for ratification, they were ―probably the most popular action of his entire administration,‖ according to one writer.91 Unfortunately, the popularity of the treaties was not universal. Theodore Roosevelt, for one, published a scathing critique, calling the documents ―silly and hypocritical.‖ Taft dismissed T.R.‘s fulminations with the observation that ―he believes in war and wishes to be a Napoleon and die on the battlefield.‖92 As important as Roosevelt‘s opinion might have been, it was the United States Senate that killed the agreements. Various Senators disagreed on wording, what matters were ―justiciable‖ under the agreements, and whether exceptions needed to be made for the Monroe Doctrine. At stake, in reality, was the Senate‘s control over American foreign policy, and Taft and Knox had not been astute enough to include Senator Lodge and the Foreign Relations Committee in the treaty-making process. The Senate ultimately passed vastly amended versions of both treaties in 1912. Taft had already received word from British and French Foreign Ministers that changes would not be accepted

89

Scholes and Scholes, Foreign Policies of the Taft Administration, p. 105. Andrew Carnegie to J.G. Schmidlapp, October 27, 1911 (Cont. 199) and Charles D. Hilles to Carnegie, June 28, 1911 (Cont. 195), both in Andrew Carnegie Papers, Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress. 91 Coletta, Presidency of WHT, p. 172. 92 WHT to Philander C. Knox, September 9, 1911, Knox Papers, Cont. 15. 90

The Presidency

131

in their countries, so the arbitration agreements were shelved for the rest of the administration.93 In foreign relations, as in domestic affairs, Taft worked hard to effect programs that he thought were beneficial to the country and responsive to the changes of the new century. In both areas, he was beset by political divides in Congress. Things would not improve as the election year approached.

93

Pringle, Taft, II: 744-55; WHT to Andrew Carnegie, December 29, 1911, Carnegie Papers, Cont. 202.

Chapter 7

THE 1912 DEBACLE Aside from politics, 1912 looked to be a promising year for the Tafts. The previous year had witnessed Nellie‘s continued recovery, although there was a health scare in May. She recovered sufficiently to play the role of hostess at the Tafts‘ very publicly-celebrated silver wedding anniversary celebration at the White House on June 19, 1911. She oversaw the installation of a phantasmagoria of electrical lighting in the house and on the grounds for the event; colored bulbs decorated trees and shrubs, while brilliant white lighting on an arch featured the wedding dates, 1886-1911. The press made much of the fact that Nellie‘s first visit to the White House had been on the occasion of the Hayes family‘s celebration of their 25th anniversary, an event which inspired her to emulation. Thousands of invitations were dispatched to all the states and many foreign lands, and an estimated 3,400 guests were treated to a buffet supper, music and dancing. Aunt Delia Torrey, now in her late 80s, was present, as were all of the Taft children. Charlie was making good grades at Horace‘s Taft School. Helen had taken a temporary leave from Bryn Mawr due to her mother‘s illness, but was already launched on what would become a distinguished academic career. Robert was a powerhouse at Harvard Law, after having finished at the top of his class at Yale. The Roosevelts were unable to attend, but everyone else important in politics and diplomacy seemed to put in an appearance. Will enjoyed himself thoroughly throughout the long evening, later writing that ―the expressions of good will and kindly feeling‖ seemed ―to introduce the touch of nature that makes the whole world kind and breaks down party and other limitations.‖1

1

Anthony, Nellie Taft, pp. 303-10 (quote on p. 310).

134

Richard G. Frederick

Early in 1912, Mrs. Taft would participate in another one of the triumphal moments of her White House stay. The saga of the Japanese cherry blossom trees began shortly after the Tafts entered the White House in 1909. When Nellie was working on the development of West Potomac Park, south of the White House, she received a letter from Eliza Scidmore, a member of the National Geographic board, whom the Tafts had met when they were in the Philippines. Ms. Scidmore suggested the planting of the Japanese cherries, which Nellie remembered from her trips to Japan. The First Lady solicited samples of the trees from nurseries around the United States, but found there were only a few available. These were purchased and planted. Shortly thereafter, through the Japanese consul, the mayor of Tokyo promised a gift of 2,000 trees, to be sent to Seattle the following winter. Unfortunately, this group of trees was destroyed by disease and it was not until 1912 that 3,000 of the trees from Japan arrived in Washington. The planting ceremony itself was not an ostentatious public event, but a more or less private one, involving the Tafts, Ms. Scidmore, and the Japanese Ambassador. Nellie planted the first tree, followed by the Ambassador‘s wife. Nellie‘s foresight would leave a distinctive physical mark on Washington, one in which she took a great deal of pride in her years of residence in the city after the presidency.2 There was also personal tragedy to deal with in 1912. Nellie‘s father, John Herron, died after a long illness in April. More of a blow to both the Tafts was the unexpected death of Major Archibald Butt, Taft‘s military attaché. Butt had been inherited from the Roosevelt administration, where he had established a close friendship with the President. His ties to Taft were even more substantial. He served not only as a Presidential advisor on matters related to military affairs and protocol, but also as a sounding board for the President in the many hours when the two traveled together or rode or walked in Washington.3 In late February, at the President‘s urging, Butt sailed abroad for a much-needed rest. He joined a friend in Rome and spent a leisurely month in Europe. He was lost in the return voyage in April, aboard the Titanic. Taft was especially aggrieved because he had strongly urged Butt to make the trip. He described his feeling of loss to a friend: ―I cannot refrain from saying that I miss him every minute, and that every house, and every tree, and every 2 3

Ibid., pp. 245-46, 333-34, 394-95. Butt‘s relationship with Taft is well-documented in the letters published after Butt‘s death. See Taft and Roosevelt: The Intimate Letters of Archie Butt, Military Aide (2 Vols., Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Doran & Company, Inc., 1930).

The 1912 Debacle

135

person suggests him. Every walk I take somehow is lacking in his presence, and every door that opens seems to be his coming.‖4 If Taft had been able to discuss his concerns in 1912 with a sympathetic listener like Archie Butt, he might have concentrated on the unsettled situation in Mexico, where an unstable government threatened to erupt in a second round of revolutionary struggle. Or he might have dwelled on the impasse over a central banking system, based on a plan for a ―Reserve Association of America,‖ which had evolved through years of meetings among Congressional committees and bankers. A major source of discussion might have been the rise in the cost of living, which several journalistic commentators discovered during the year. The Democrats blamed the high tariff, of course. Taft pointed to worldwide conditions, but realized that this was a problem which bore watching, possibly through the appointment of a Presidential study commission.5 The one certainty in 1912 was the Presidential election. Even without the active participation of Theodore Roosevelt – and no one could predict for sure his course at the beginning of the year – the President faced opposition within his own party. The nomination would not be a sure thing. And if Taft did secure the nomination, the Democrats promised a spirited campaign, featuring one of several attractive candidates. The election year for Taft would essentially consist of two parts: winning the Republican nomination followed by the general election. In the first instance, his organization performed astutely and with diligence. The following campaign, however, was at best lackluster and produced a result as dismal as any in history for a sitting president.

WINNING THE NOMINATION The first major step in Taft‘s 1912 electoral effort began in the fall of 1911. His main strategist at this point was Charles D. Hilles, Taft‘s secretary and, until February 1912, his informal campaign manager. Taft and Hilles devised a plan for Taft to carry his campaign directly to the people in a lengthy trip which observers might view as non-political, since it took place before any active electioneering commenced. The purpose was ostensibly to argue the case for the arbitration treaties, which would meet with strong opposition in the Senate. With the same flawed logic which took Woodrow Wilson on the road to sell his treaty to the public eight years later, Taft set out in the fall of 4 5

Quoted in Ross, An American Family, p. 255. Pringle, Taft, II: chap. 37.

136

Richard G. Frederick

1911. The difference was that Taft‘s agenda was to sell himself as well as the treaties. The President and his secretary set out on September 15 on a trip that would take them 13,000 miles over seven weeks. Taft made more than 300 speeches in twenty states, including major addresses in large cities and greetings from the back of the train car in smaller burgs. He was energetic throughout the trip, rising most mornings at 6:30 and retiring around midnight. The trip covered states in the Midwest and West, where Republican insurgency was particularly strong. In each of the states visited, Taft presented his message to crowds while Hilles met with local politicians and lobbied for support in the Republican delegations to the 1912 national convention. For his part, Taft stressed his progressive achievements, while assuring audiences that he was not a radical. Behind the scenes, Hilles appealed to officeholders and regular Republicans to mobilize them against LaFollette and other party radicals, who were characterized as not representing the mass of Republican voters.6 Taft‘s speeches produced mixed results. William Allen White reported to Theodore Roosevelt that ―The audiences that Taft is getting are charitably well described as ‗orderly and well behaved‘, but never is there any enthusiasm.‖ Though coming from a political adversary, this may have been an apt characterization. According to Archie Butt, the President‘s speeches were ―dry and full of statistics, and we cannot get him away from figures.‖ Butt also saw that listeners were not impressed. ―As I see him sometimes laboring to interest an audience and failing to do so, I feel so sorry for him I could almost cry,‖ he wrote.7 Taft‘s response to the trip was mixed. He initially told his brother Horace that, while he was ―pursuing the middle of the road policy as well as I can,‖ he was unsure of the result. After a month‘s reflection, however, he was willing to label the trip ―the greatest thing I have ever done from a political standpoint and, next to going to the Philippines, the most important single decision I have made.‖ Based on impressions he had received since his return, and doubtlessly from positive reinforcement from Hilles, Taft was certain that the trip, ―if it did not dispel and break up the whole insurgent movement which was aimed at me, at least demonstrated to the country how weak it was and that there was no 6

Norman M. Wilensky, Conservatives in the Progressive Era: The Taft Republicans of 1912 (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1964), pp. 12-14; Butt, Taft and Roosevelt II: 755. 7 Ibid. II: 757; Johnson, ed., Selected Letters of William Allen White, p. 126.

The 1912 Debacle

137

substance for any of the claims which the leaders of it were making.‖8 Having been pessimistic through most of the year about his chances for reelection, the President was displaying some optimism by the end of 1911. Meanwhile, the Republican progressives pursued their own political course. Early in 1911, Senators Robert M. LaFollette of Wisconsin and Jonathan Bourne of Oregon had met with other G.O.P. reformers to form the National Progressive Republican League. While the League promoted a number of reforms, including the direct election of United States Senators and primary election laws, a major purpose of the group was to promote the candidacy of a progressive Republican against the President in 1912. Since Theodore Roosevelt was adamant in proclaiming his non-candidacy, the choice naturally fell to LaFollette, who had been one of the strongest and most consistent voices of insurgency in the Senate. He officially announced his candidacy on June 17, 1911.9 By the fall of 1911, the LaFollette campaign was one of fits and starts. The Senator was more interested in spelling out his principles in an autobiography which was published in installments in one of the muckraking magazines. Many of the progressive Republicans considered him too radical, and continued to hope for some political miracle which would bring Roosevelt into the fray. Former Roosevelt cabinet member James R. Garfield answered an appeal for LaFollette from Amos Pinchot by remarking that ―he does not seem to be making the headway I supposed he would with Republicans. Many who are absolutely against Taft are likewise opposed to LaFollette.‖ When a convention of progressives met in Chicago in October to endorse the Wisconsin Senator, Garfield argued against the action, although he lukewarmly ―acquiesced in the endorsement with the distinct understanding that it was not a pledge.‖10 Some leaders, such as William Allen White, refused to attend. At a convention the in early January, Ohio Progressive Republicans refused to endorse any candidate. The LaFollette campaign effectively ended on February 2, 1912 in Philadelphia. The candidate was one of several invited speakers (another was Woodrow Wilson) at the annual dinner of the Periodical Publishers Association, an influential group that had much control over public opinion in 8

WHT to Horace Taft, November 5, 1911; Butt, Taft and Roosevelt II: 800. George E. Mowry, Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement (New York: Hill and Wang, 1960), pp. 172-74; Nancy C. Unger, Fighting Bob LaFollette: The Righteous Reformer (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000), pp. 194-98. 10 James R. Garfield to Amos Pinchot, September 28, 1911 and Garfield to Truman Newberry, November 22, 1911, both in Garfield Papers, Box 117. 9

138

Richard G. Frederick

the pre-radio and television era. LaFollette‘s speech was a disaster. It was long, rambling, and repetitive. His manner was angry and indignant in many of his statements about the unfairness of the press. In subsequent days newspapers across the country commented about his mental breakdown.11 Although he would refuse to withdraw from the race, he no longer had a chance to win the nomination. LaFollette‘s fatal gaffe opened the door wide for Roosevelt. Although importuned by his steadfast supporters to announce himself a candidate, Roosevelt had held fast through 1911 to his 1904 pledge not to seek a third Presidential term. This did not mean he was silent on political issues, however. Following his involvement in the 1910 elections, he remained outspoken and identified himself with the progressive wing of the party. He specifically did not endorse LaFollette for President, however, nor did he join the National Progressive Republican League. He had his own forum for expression in the pages of the Outlook magazine, for which he wrote regularly on political topics. One of the magazine‘s editors commented that Roosevelt‘s coterie of supporters who gathered around his office made it appear to be ―a veritable political headquarters.‖12 By February of 1912, Roosevelt had come to the conclusion that he alone could lead the forces against reaction in the Republican party. A Roosevelt National Committee had already been formed in January, and members of the group met in Chicago in early February to form a campaign committee and begin planning for the election. A plan devised there called for a number of Republican governors (seven would ultimately sign) to issue a public letter urging Roosevelt to run. He accepted the challenge in Ohio on Washington‘s Birthday, telling reporters, ―My hat is in the ring.‖ He then enunciated his progressive views before the Ohio Constitutional Convention assembly in Columbus in a speech which one historian called ―at once perhaps the most sincere and the most disastrous of Roosevelt‘s public addresses.‖13 Although the address was in most respects a moderate one, it included a proposal for the recall of state judicial decisions. This would alienate many of T.R.‘s would-be supporters, who felt that the judiciary should be impervious to politics. Even some of his avid followers were concerned with his position on the issue. Although Roosevelt specified that he referred to state courts, not federal ones, 11

Unger, Fighting Bob LaFollette, chap. xii. Lawrence F. Abbott, Impressions of Theodore Roosevelt (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1920), p. 76. 13 Mowry, Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement, p. 212. 12

The 1912 Debacle

139

few commentators seemed aware of the distinction, and the issue became a major one during the campaign.14 President Taft held strong opinions on the independence of the judiciary. He had typically appointed federal judges on the basis of merit, rather than with a view toward political advantage through patronage. Based mainly on this issue, Taft concluded that the former President had ―leaped far ahead of the most radical leaders‖ of the progressive group. Likening him to French leaders who lost control of their revolution, he posited that T.R. would ―either be a hopeless failure if elected or destroy his own reputation by becoming a socialist, being swept there by force of circumstances.‖15 A few years later, in an essay extolling Roosevelt‘s virtues, Taft had not notably altered this opinion, although he personally made up with Roosevelt before his death. He explained that Roosevelt had never really been a radical, since his core beliefs included regard for law and order and property rights. However, ―injustice aroused him‖ and led him to make intemperate statements. ―His radicalism, such as he had, took the form of undervaluing the necessity for orderly procedure and of seeking a shortcut to the reform of evil. He did not fully realize the ultimate results of such short cuts.‖16 As Republicans lined up to take sides after Roosevelt‘s entry into the race, several who were friendly to both Roosevelt and Taft encouraged the former to withdraw in favor of the sitting President. One of these was Andrew Carnegie. His penned his plea to T.R. a week after the Columbus speech. Roosevelt‘s lengthy reply set out many of the points he would make against Taft in the ensuing campaign. He charged that Taft had completely changed in his views from his days as Secretary of War (―when he was my lieutenant‖), and no longer held the interests of ―the people‖ foremost. He found Taft guilty of ―abandoning the policies for the benefit of the people for which I stood and in allying himself with the closest enemies of those policies.‖ He emphasized Taft‘s closeness with party bosses – Boies Penrose, Murray Crane, William McKinley, Nelson Aldrich, and William Barnes. He further hammered home the point that Taft had reversed the policies for which Roosevelt stood in

14

Oscar King Davis, Released for Publication: Some Inside Political History of Theodore Roosevelt and His Times, 1898-1918 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1925), pp. 26166. 15 Butt, Taft and Roosevelt II: 847. 16 See Taft‘s introduction to William Draper Lewis, The Life of Theodore Roosevelt (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1919), p. xviii.

140

Richard G. Frederick

benefiting the people. With his mind set on the righteousness of his cause, Roosevelt was not about to act on the basis of his past friendship with Taft.17 The Taft campaign operated on two fronts in the spring of 1912. On the one hand, Taft actively campaigned. This was an enterprise he had expressed a disdain for all of his adult life, but something he was forced to do in answer to Roosevelt and LaFollette‘s entry into the presidential preferential primaries. Both the challengers mounted campaigns in the dozen states which had adopted the primaries as a way of showing their popular support as well as winning delegates to the national nominating convention. Taft could hardly afford to sit out. Brother Charles provided initial financial backing of $25,000 in early February and urged Taft and Hilles to get the campaign rolling.18 In the early stages of the campaign, Taft refused to attack Roosevelt directly, at least by name. Roosevelt had no such qualms in pitting his achievements as President against the incumbent‘s. At the beginning of April, Taft wrote that the contest was especially unpleasant ―because of the antics of my opponent who has misrepresented and distorted everything I have said in order to charge me with a distrust of the American people.‖ Even though he observed that ―Roosevelt really seems to be beside himself with rage and to have lost all control,‖ Taft remained determined not to answer his charges directly, but ―to let the papers attend to it and they are doing it.‖19 By the middle of the month, Taft privately commented on Roosevelt‘s charge that he had allied with the party‘s bosses. ―Considering the use which Roosevelt made of bosses in the past, one would think the hypocrisy of such would be seen, but not in the case of a popular idol,‖ he ruefully remarked. While still planning to abstain from a personal attack on T.R., Taft thought that others involved in the campaign would repudiate his ―lies and unblushing misrepresentations.‖20 By the end of the month, Taft delivered his own counterattack. The primary campaign had not been going well. With half the races finished, Taft had not yet won any. North Dakota and Wisconsin were, predictably, LaFollette wins, but Illinois was a disappointment with Roosevelt swamping Taft by a better than two-to-one margin. Pennsylvania was similarly disappointing. In spite of support from many of the state‘s leaders, Taft could 17

Andrew Carnegie to Theodore Roosevelt, March 1, 1912 and Roosevelt‘s reply, March 5, 1912, both in Carnegie Papers, Cont. 204. Newspaperman Hermann Kohlsaat also wrote T.R. to dissuade him from challenging Taft. See Kohlsaat, From McKinley to Harding, pp. 182-83. 18 CPT to Charles D. Hilles, February 3, 1912. 19 WHT to CPT, April 1, 1912. 20 WHT to Horace Taft, April 14, 1912.

The 1912 Debacle

141

garner only about 40% of the vote to Roosevelt‘s 60%. Nebraska and Oregon were both in the Roosevelt column; worse, in each case Taft finished third behind LaFollette. Thus the April 30 Massachusetts primary became a real test for the Taft forces to prove they could win a popular vote.21 After delivering several speeches in small towns along the way, Taft made his major address in Boston on April 26. He defended himself at great length from specific Roosevelt charges, including the alliance with Republican bosses and the misuse of patronage to secure Taft‘s renomination. He accused the former President of misusing his (Taft‘s) quotes and misrepresenting his own and Taft‘s positions on various issues, such as Canadian reciprocity. In defending his own progressive legislation, such as the push for economy and efficiency in government, the postal savings bill, new railroad and legislation, and laws protecting labor, Taft admitted that he had used the support of Republican party regulars. Roosevelt had done the same, he asserted. ―In all Mr. Roosevelt‘s history, he never failed to use as instruments for his purpose those whom he found in power. . . . I have merely followed his example.‖22 Taft ended his speech by speculating on the meaning of Roosevelt‘s desire for a third term. He stated that T.R. had indicated that the ―job‖ ahead of the nation‘s leaders was so great that only he could successfully grapple with it. Furthermore, it would take much longer than four years to bring to completion. Did this mean that Roosevelt, having broken the two-term tradition, would seek even more years in office? Taft concluded that, ―One who so lightly regards constitutional principles, and especially the independence of the judiciary, one who is so naturally impatient of legal restraints, and of due legal procedure, and who has so misunderstood what liberty regulated by law is, could not safely be intrusted with successive presidential terms.‖23 In this and other speeches in Massachusetts, he expressed great personal sorrow in having to attack his former friend and patron, but found it necessary, given Roosevelt‘s attacks on him. Massachusetts voters responded positively, giving Taft a narrow victory over Roosevelt. The vitriol escalated in Ohio. With its reputation for progressive politics and the large number of convention delegates at stake, the President‘s home state would attract the Roosevelt forces, as well as LaFollette. Besides, this 21

The primary election results are found in Lewis L. Gould, Four Hats in the Ring: The 1912 Election and the Birth of Modern American Politics (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2008), p. 190. 22 Pringle, Taft, II: 780. 23 Quoted in ibid., II:781.

142

Richard G. Frederick

was the President‘s home state, and a win against him would represent a solid repudiation of his leadership. Roosevelt and Taft each set out with an entourage of Congressmen, Governors, and cabinet officers, past and present, to present their cases. Each man also made innumerable speeches while logging thousands of miles crisscrossing the state in their railroad cars. Their insults belonged to an earlier political generation, mixing historical terms like Jacobin with familiar ones like apostate, demagogue, hypocrite, and fathead and the more arcane puzzlewit and honeyfugler.24 The gloves had come all the way off in Ohio. The result was disappointing. Ohio voters favored Roosevelt by 166,000 to 118,000 for Taft, with LaFollette picking up fewer than 16,000. The results in California and South Dakota were even worse, with Roosevelt beating Taft by a 2-1 margin in each of those states. New Jersey was closer, but Taft still lost by a substantial margin. When all 12 primary elections were totaled, Roosevelt received 1,164,765 to Taft‘s 768,202 and LaFollette‘s 327,357.25 If the people had well and truly spoken, they had spoken for Roosevelt as the nominee of the Republican party. But the primaries were only a part of the 1912 campaign, and proved to be less important than events on the other campaign front, which was the selection of convention delegates by processes other than popular election. The first crucial test for Taft on this front was the meeting of the Republican National Committee in Washington in December 1911. This group would decide such important questions as the convention city, membership on the subcommittee for the convention organization, and whether the party would adopt popular primaries for all states in determining their Presidential candidate. Taft feted the politicians in a White House dinner, at which Archie Butt reported seeing ―more political schemes hatched, and died in hatching, than one usually sees in a dozen such dinners around Washington.‖26 All the decisions of the Committee were in Taft‘s favor. The primaries were vetoed, the convention was set for Chicago in June, and the convention subcommittee was chaired by the conservative Harry New of Indiana, and staffed with other Taft supporters. The New group would control basic arrangements at the convention, such as the selection of both temporary and permanent chairmen, the keynote speaker, and the seating of disputed delegates.27 24

Mowry, Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement, pp. 234-35 is a spirited account. Gould, Four Hats in the Ring, p. 190. 26 Butt, Taft and Roosevelt, II:783. 27 Wilensky, Conservatives in the Progressive Era, pp. 23-24. 25

The 1912 Debacle

143

Following this success, Hilles and other Taft campaign leaders worked diligently to assure that state delegations were in favor of Taft. Through patronage appointments, including local postmasters all over the country, state party organizations were largely in the control of the national committee. Before Roosevelt even announced his candidacy, several smaller states, a number of Southern states which had no significant progressive factions, and some larger delegations such as New York and Indiana were pledged to Taft‘s renomination. Hilles also organized Taft support in strong insurgent states, where he hoped to pick up a few votes and deny them to the other side. Hilles and Illinois Representative William McKinley established the Taft Bureau in Washington, which issued daily press releases on the delegate numbers and twice-weekly pamphlets called ―Taft Truths.‖ Taft‘s friend, retired engineer John Hays Hammond, was pressed into extensive travel duty as head of the National League of Taft Clubs, an organization of state and local groups.28 Country-wide, Old Guard leaders rallied behind Taft. Taft‘s nomination was assured a week before the convention, when the National Committee met to settle disputed seats in the various state delegations. The vote tally at the end of all the primaries and state conventions showed Roosevelt in the lead with 432; Taft was second with 326 and LaFollette trailed with 41. The remaining 254 seats were contested. Taft was awarded 235 of the contested delegates, bringing his total to 561, or 21 more than the 540 votes necessary to win the nomination.29 The Roosevelt men cried foul, T.R. himself announced he was going to Chicago while the convention was in session, and the nation awaited what promised to be a lollapalooza of a political gathering. Most accounts of the 1912 Republican convention characterize it as tumultuous. The best pre-convention description belongs to Finley Peter Dunne, whose Irish immigrant creation, Mr. Dooley, said it promised to be ―a combination iv th‘ Chicago fire, Saint Bartholomew‘s massacree, the battle iv th‘ Boyne, th‘life iv Jesse James, an‘ th‘ night iv th‘ big wind.‖30 Not only was there dissent among the delegates, but noisy throngs of spectators, mainly pro-

28 29

Ibid., pp. 14-23, 52-53. National Party Conventions, p. 88. While historians are generally in agreement on these numbers, there is not unanimity on the actual numbers each candidate was entitled to. The one in-depth study of a disputed delegation concludes that Taft was awarded 12 more delegates than he deserved in Texas. See Lewis L. Gould, ―Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Disputed Delegates in 1912: Texas as a Test Case,‖ Southwestern History Quarterly 80 (1976): 33-56.

144

Richard G. Frederick

Roosevelt, added to the carnival atmosphere. The result was predictable. Few speakers were allowed to orate without interruptions. Fistfights broke out. Disorder ruled in the hall. Former Indiana Senator James Watson would later describe the convention as ―simply terrible. . . .More personal animosity was engendered, more individual hatreds stirred and flamed high, more bitterness was aroused than in any other gathering I have ever attended.‖31 The first order of business, on Tuesday, June 18, spurred the crowd. The Taft forces put forward Elihu Root for temporary chairman, a position of importance in terms of controlling the convention. Although Root favored Taft over Roosevelt, he had earlier refused to make speeches for the President, since he had been Roosevelt‘s good friend and a member of his administration.32 Even though Roosevelt had a great fondness for Root, he would not accede to his choosing by the National Committee. This aroused Taft‘s ire. He told Andrew Carnegie that T.R.‘s protest of Root was ―one of the unexpected and inexplicable developements (sic) of the disgusting and disgraceful campaign precipitated by Mr. Roosevelt‘s insatiable lust for power.‖33 Roosevelt‘s partisans favored Francis McGovern; as Governor of Wisconsin, he might be the unifying factor between the Roosevelt and LaFollette progressive forces at the convention. The vote, 558-501 for Root, was the closest the Roosevelt crowd came to having anything their way. The Roosevelt partisans in the gallery responded even more heartily to the events that followed. The progressive faction, wholly dissatisfied by the decisions of the National Committee on the disputed delegates, brought 72 challenges to the convention. Following a close and contentious vote over whether the delegates in dispute (all Taft men) should be allowed to vote on the cases other than they own (they were so allowed), each challenge was considered individually, with Chairman Root presiding. The first two were decided by delegate votes, then simply by voice votes. The Taft men won every challenge. Newspaperman Henry Stoddard later wrote about the response to this process: ―As each Roosevelt delegate was ousted, the galleries would make a shuffling, ‗choo-choo‘ noise like a locomotive getting under

30

Quoted in Joseph L. Gardner, Departing Glory: Theodore Roosevelt as Ex-President (New York: Charles Scribner‘s Sons, 1973), p. 241. 31 Watson, As I Knew Them, p. 158. 32 Elihu Root to WHT, May 15, 1912, Root Papers, Box 166. 33 WHT to Andrew Carnegie, May 28, 1912, Carnegie Papers, Cont. 207.

The 1912 Debacle

145

way. . . . It was then that the term ‗steam-roller,‘ first used in 1908, was added permanently to convention literature.‖34 The rest of the convention business was anticlimactic. Knowing that they could not win a convention vote, Roosevelt supporters stood in mute testimony to their defiance of the convention. They refused to vote on the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates, and on the acceptance of the majority platform. Taft, nominated by the former Lieutenant Governor of Ohio, Warren G. Harding, was easily selected on the first ballot. (The vote was 556 for Taft, 107 for Roosevelt, and 41 for LaFollette, with 348 present and not voting.) Vice-President James S. Sherman beat runner-up William E. Borah by 596-21, with 352 present and not voting. The majority platform was accepted 666 to 53, with 343 delegates refusing to vote, after a minority progressive platform had been rejected in its entirety by a voice vote.35 The platform was, as are most, a compromise document. It seemed to address specifically Roosevelt‘s continuing call for control of the courts in citing the Constitution‘s provision ―for the interpretation of the law by an untrammeled and independent judiciary.‖ Another statement later in the document averred that ―The Republican party reaffirms its intention to uphold at all times the authority and integrity of the Courts, both State and Federal and it will ever insist that their powers to enforce their process and to protect life, liberty and property shall be preserved inviolate.‖ Progressive planks included anti-monopoly, limitation of campaign expenditures, a federal trade commission, a Federal Employers‘ Liability Law, conservation, and federal support for flood prevention, land reclamation, and rivers and harbors. The platform was more conservative on the tariff and banking and currency. It ended with the expected encomiums to the incumbent Republican administration.36 The Taft forces may have won the convention victories, but the disgruntled Roosevelt delegates promised a continuation of the struggle. Amos Pinchot alleged that the National Committee and the credentials committee ―knew that they were acting dishonestly.‖ He warned that ―If National Committees under the leadership of crooks are to control the nomination of our Presidents, we are going to have a hard time in this country.‖37 The ―stolen convention‖ theme was to be a continuous refrain in the coming campaign, but 34

Henry L. Stoddard, It Costs to Be President (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1938), p. 313. National Party Conventions, p. 88. 36 Johnson, ed. National Party Platforms, I:183-88. 37 Amos Pinchot to Albert B. Kerr, June 25, 1912, Amos Pinchot Papers, Box 12. 35

146

Richard G. Frederick

not the major one. Even before the convention began, Roosevelt and other progressives wrote and made speeches indicating their dissatisfaction with the recent conservative course of the Republican party. The idea of bolting the party was firmly set at least a week before, when the delegate situation was resolved in Taft‘s favor. On the day before the convention began, addressing a large crowd in Chicago, Roosevelt gave his famous speech ending with: ―we stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord.‖ The actual bolt began two days after Root was named chairman, with Roosevelt delegates attending a meeting in nearby Orchestra Hall to orchestrate a new party.38 Planning for the Progressive Party convention occupied much of July, with a call issued for the first full week of August in Chicago. At the gathering of somber reformers, Roosevelt again pictured himself and his followers at Armageddon battling for a higher purpose. This reflected the mood of the convention, which one historian found ―had all the air of an Episcopal synod.‖39 The presence of a large number of women dampened the usual hysteria of such gatherings, and religious hymns such as ―Onward Christian Soldiers‖ were staple fare during the three days of meetings. In the end, a reformist platform was adopted, and Roosevelt and his running mate, California Governor Hiram Johnson, ventured forth to campaign for human rights and social justice. Going into the Republican convention, Taft had foreseen the Roosevelt bolt. He told his brother Horace that he could accept any outcome of the convention, as long as it was not a Roosevelt nomination. Afterwards, in a note to his Secretary of the Interior, he opined that the outcome was ―most gratifying, for you know how sincere was my belief that the candidacy of my opponent was a real menace. It was my chief concern, and now that he has been effectively thwarted I am content.‖40 Taft‘s initial impulse may have been the positive one he expressed here. As the weeks went along, however, and the Progressives mounted their challenge, it became clear that neither Taft nor Roosevelt would likely win with their party split between them. Perhaps the most trenchant observation was offered by the veteran New York politician, Chauncey Depew: ―The only question now is which corpse gets the most flowers.‖41 38

Gable, Bull Moose Years, pp. 16-18. Brands, T.R., p. 718. 40 WHT to Horace Taft, June 19, 1912; WHT to Walter L. Fisher, June 25, 1912, Fisher Papers, Box 13. 41 Quoted in Gardner, Departing Glory, p. 252. 39

The 1912 Debacle

147

THE CAMPAIGN While the Republican party was self-destructing, other political organizations were preparing for the campaign. The Socialists met in Indianapolis in May and, predictably, nominated Eugene Debs to run for President on a platform calling for universal health insurance, social security for old age, a minimum wage, and government ownership of land, railroads, and telephone and telegraph lines, among other things. The Democrats met in Baltimore in June the week after the Republican circus in Chicago. While their convention would also be far from orderly, it lacked the rancor that marked the Republican gathering. The Democrats still followed the two-thirds rule, adopted back in the distant Jacksonian era, which was aimed at ensuring the nomination of a candidate with support from all major factions within the party. With four strong candidates in a field of six nominees in 1912, the contest clearly would not be won without several ballots. The Speaker of the House, Missourian Champ Clark, led the field over Woodrow Wilson, Governor of New Jersey, for thirty ballots. The momentum to Wilson began earlier, however, when William Jennings Bryan announced his switch to Wilson, followed later by the withdrawal in Wilson‘s favor of Indiana Governor Thomas Marshall and, still later, by Representative Oscar Underwood of Alabama. Wilson‘s campaign managers also successfully pursued negotiations with the leaders of the Illinois and Indiana delegations. Wilson finally prevailed on the forty-sixth ballot. His running mate, Marshall, was selected after the second ballot.42 Widely perceived as representing the liberal wing of the Democratic party, Wilson would present a reformist alternative to the Bull Moosers. Following the Republican convention, the Taft campaign was listless. The President‘s personal campaign strategy was not to campaign. He made only one major speech – his official acceptance of the nomination on August 1. These remarks were instructive, since his campaign would not stray far from the themes he developed in the address, given at the White House in front of a few hundred family members and supporters. He started by taking a swing at Roosevelt, whom he characterized (without mentioning him by name) as ―one whose recently avowed political views would have committed the party to radical proposals involving dangerous changes in our present constitutional

42

Arthur S. Link, Wilson: The Road to the White House (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1947), chap. xiii.

148

Richard G. Frederick

form of representative government and our independent judiciary.‖43 He then went on to claim for his party all the achievements of the past fifty years, including the Civil War, the fight for sound money, the Spanish-American War, and regulatory and antitrust legislation. For all his supposed conservatism, he intriguingly extolled the virtues of ―wider Governmental functions in the promotion of the comfort of the people.‖ (2205) He followed this with a partial list of the achievements of his own administration. He then denounced muckraking and demagogues, both of which produced unreasoned ―popular unrest.‖ ―New Parties are being formed,‖ he continued, ―with the proposed purpose of satisfying this unrest by promising a panacea.‖ He stated definitely that ―the coming of so-called social justice involves a forced division of property, and that means socialism.‖ (2207) He found that both the Progressives and the Democrats ―are going in a direction they do not definitely know, toward an end they cannot definitely describe, with but one chief and clear object, and that is of acquiring power for their party by popular support through the promise of a change for the better.‖ (2208) The worst feature of this mania for reform was an attack on the independence of the courts, as guaranteed under the Constitution. He singled out the Progressive call for the review of judicial decisions as particularly heinous, but found areas on which to criticize the Democrats as well. Taft hammered his theme for several paragraphs: The independence of the judiciary is basic to the Constitution; therefore, only the Republican party upholds the Constitution. The latter two-thirds of the speech presented what one might expect of an incumbent – a review of the achievements of his administration. Economy and efficiency were stressed. The Panama Canal and other foreign affairs received brief mention. Taft then segued into foreign trade, which led inevitably to a lengthy discussion of the merits of the Payne-Aldrich Tariff. He emphasized the importance of the Tariff Board, which allowed for the equitable adjustment of rates in order to allow American manufacturers to make a profit without gouging the public. Here he pointed out that the Democratic party platform proclaimed a protective tariff unconstitutional. To elect the Democrats would bring unemployment and a halt to manufacturing, producing ―a condition of suffering among the people that no reforming legislation could neutralize or mitigate.‖ (2215)

43

A copy of the speech is found in George E. Mowry, ―Election of 1912,‖ in Arthur M. Schlesinger, et al., eds. History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-1968 (4 Vols.,

The 1912 Debacle

149

Taft then sought to establish his position on the antitrust question. Responding to the Supreme Court‘s so-called ―rule of reason‖ in the 1911 antitrust decisions in cases against American Tobacco and Standard Oil, Taft proposed constructive legislation to allow large enterprises to operate legally. He favored a plan for Federal incorporation, to be voluntarily chosen by companies, which would spell out the rules to be followed and thus provide ―the protection and security‖ a corporation could enjoy under federal government protection. He also spoke of ―close supervision and regulation of the business transactions of the corporation‖ to ensure that no illegal activity occurred. This supervision would, presumably, be carried out through the federal trade commission outlined in the Republican platform. (2217) He ended with another reference to ―the fog of misrepresentation and demagoguery‖ which his party stood against, and invited Democrats with an aversion to proposed radical change to join with the Republicans in promoting ―true constitutional and representative rule by the people.‖ (2219) The speech was more workmanlike than inspiring. It was not full of heroic, ringing phrases designed to pull people into following Taft to the end of the world. But as a piece of work, it served to promote the party‘s ideals as enunciated in the platform. Theodore Roosevelt had laid himself open to charges of being ―too radical‖ since his Columbus speech on the recall of judicial decisions had excited so much negative criticism. The Republicans would fully exploit this issue throughout the campaign, as Taft did in his acceptance speech. There would be many positive claims by the Republicans about the Taft record on economic and foreign affairs. In establishing the main lines for Republicans candidates, including the President, to use in the 1912 election, the speech seemed to accomplish precisely what one would want from an address designed to kick off the campaign. The problem was that, for the President, there was no real campaign to follow the kickoff. He told his brother Charles that he had to be in Washington on two separate occasions in September, but otherwise planned to be at the family‘s summer home. Since becoming President, he had decided not to summer in Canada, but in Beverly, Massachusetts, where he relaxed, visited with friends and family, and played a lot of golf. In October, he told Charles, he might travel with Mrs. Taft to Hot Spring for further rest and relaxation. ―I am not going to make any speeches in this campaign,‖ he said, though he would consider a publication of his views ―about the first of October after New York: Chelsea House, 1971), III: 2204-19 (quote on p. 2204). Subsequent quotes from the speech are from this source.

150

Richard G. Frederick

matters have become lined up and I can treat those subjects that need discussion.‖44 There would be a few more speeches, but only in front of friendly groups, such as the late September gathering of Essex County, Massachusetts Republican clubs, when Taft made the address from the porch of the family‘s cottage in Beverly. There was no lengthy campaign tour featuring speeches in the big cities, such as Wilson and Roosevelt were undertaking. As historian Francis Broderick observed, ―the certainty of defeat and the obligation of presidential dignity shaped his conduct. Official remarks now and again would show that his party still lived, but he had no intention of romping around.‖45 There was a campaign of sorts, aside from Taft. The President dictated the choice of Charles Hilles to head the National Committee and direct the campaign. This was probably a good choice, given that Hilles had been both indefatigable and shrewd in manipulating things before the convention. But it was also a thankless task that Hilles took on, and there had not been much competition on the part of others to secure the job. A more difficult position to fill was that of treasurer for the campaign. The Taft administration‘s uncompromising enforcement of the Sherman Act had already lessened corporate support of the party. With Roosevelt in the field, some of the wealthy party backers who had contributed to the pre-convention campaign now foresaw defeat in November and hesitated to waste any more money in a losing cause. National Committee treasurer George Sheldon submitted his resignation, and Hilles could not persuade anyone else to fill the position. After more than a month without a treasurer (and at least seven refusals to serve), Sheldon resumed the post along with an assistant treasurer. The campaign limped along on a shoestring budget, estimated at one-quarter to one-third the normal expenditures.46 Hilles established campaign offices in New York, Chicago, and Portland, but there was often little activity in them. A major point of emphasis was advertising, and Hilles exploited whatever outlets he could afford – the newspaper press, periodicals of all sorts, billboards, and streetcars. These means were more necessary than ever, given the paucity of Republicans who were speaking for Taft. Some leading Republicans campaigned for Roosevelt. Others, viewing Taft‘s passivity, used this as an excuse to stay out of the fray 44

WHT to CPT, August 25, 1912. Francis L. Broderick, Progressivism at Risk: Electing a President in 1912 (New York: Greenwood Press, 1989), p. 184. 46 Wilensky, Conservatives in the Progressive Era, p. 70. 45

The 1912 Debacle

151

themselves; with such a severe split in their party, why take sides if they didn‘t have to? Taft noted this tendency on the part of some politicians and averred he was discouraged by ―the utter timidity of so many who really owed me allegiance and ought to have come out boldly. . . . I think it would have been better for them to get down on one side of the fence and talk boldly than to shilly-shally, even though for the time being they may have driven some of their followers from them.‖47 One additional drawback for some would-be campaigners was the tenor of the Republican campaign, which was set by the party‘s Old Guard. This was the dilemma faced by Secretary of the Interior Walter L. Fisher. On a trip to the West Coast and Hawaii in September to discuss conservation policies, he reported on both his lack of success in fundraising and his concerns about the campaign. He wrote that he was solidly for Taft, but ―not for the reasons that seem to be given most prominence by those speeches in his behalf which have reached here.‖ In his opinion, ―a very grave mistake is being made, especially in the attacks upon some of the progressive policies for which, as you well know, I have stood and for which I still stand.‖48 The Taft camp ran the risk of alienating all progressives by stressing the radicalism of all the other candidates, whether they were Democratic, Progressive, or Socialist. Most of the President‘s private correspondence during this period reflected his obsession with the Roosevelt candidacy, and had relatively little to say about Wilson. Debs was never a factor. Much of his speculation concerned the order of finish. He thought Roosevelt had no chance of finishing ahead of him, but noted that ―Our great weakness is the assumption that Wilson will be elected certainly, and that there is danger that Roosevelt may beat me.‖49 The week before the election, he was assuring supporters that Roosevelt would be in no position to influence party policies after the election. Finishing third would ―rob him of a power for evil which he otherwise must exercise with his present constitutional views.‖50 On the eve of the election, he told his aunt Delia that, win or lose, he had the satisfaction of thwarting Roosevelt‘s bid. ―I think that entitles me to the gratitude of my country even if nothing else does,‖ he wrote.51

47

Taft to W.A. Rodenberg, October 17, 1912; Broderick, Progressivism at Risk, pp. 164-66. Walter L. Fisher to Walter H. Wilson, September 30, 1912, Fisher Papers, Box 1. 49 WHT to Horace Taft, September 16, 1912. 50 WHT to George B. Edwards, October 28, 1912. 51 WHT to Aunt Delia (Torrey), November 1, 1912. 48

152

Richard G. Frederick

As for his own chances of winning, Taft was cautiously optimistic. One of the reasons he assigned Roosevelt the third spot was his problem with electors – the Taft campaign used the courts to prevent T.R. from claiming electors that people had voted in as Republicans, causing some technical difficulties for the Progressive party. Taft also noted that local politicians in many places were reluctant to run as Progressives, even if they supported that party, since large numbers of Republican voters might not switch their allegiance from their party.52 The situation created a ―political fog,‖ he told his brother Henry, ―but I hope that some currents of air are blowing in the right direction.‖ He developed a sort of non-specific celestial optimism which barely masked the reality that he could not possibly win, as in his observation to his brother: ―I am hopeful that the next seven weeks may develop a situation the elements of which are present and only need amalgamation to produce a favorable result.‖53 On the eve of the election, he was much more the analytical Taft, even if his analysis was more hopeful than realistic. He wrote a lengthy (12-page) letter to his brother Horace in which he predicted victory for himself in more than half the states. Of course, he began by noting that his campaign had been beset with terrible fortune almost from the start. Just when the voters were catching on to Roosevelt‘s prevarications, for example, and beginning to turn against him, he was the target of an attempted assassination, which garnered sympathy for him. The latest blast of fate for Taft was the death of VicePresident Sherman a few days before the election. (He actually wrote the letter to Horace en route to Sherman‘s funeral.) Still, he said, various Republican correspondents in states in all regions of the country were assuring him that victory was possible.54 Election day brought the inevitable unfavorable result. The Democrats won handily, with 435 electoral votes to 88 for the Progressives and 8 for the Republicans. Wilson‘s popular vote total was 6,293,019, compared to Roosevelt‘s 4,119,507 and Taft‘s 3,484,956. The Socialist Debs received over 900,000 votes. Wilson won 41 states, Taft only two – Utah and Vermont. It was the worst showing by an incumbent President in United States history. The Democrats also exploited the Republican split to win control of both houses of Congress for the first time since the Civil War.55 Together, 52

WHT to Henry Taft, August 3, 1912. WHT to Henry Taft, September 18, 1912. 54 WHT to Horace Taft, November 1, 1912. 55 Mowry, ―Election of 1912,‖ III:2163, 2242. 53

The 1912 Debacle

153

Roosevelt and Taft outpolled Wilson, who did not get a majority of the popular vote in any state outside the old Confederacy, but it was doubtful if either, running alone against Wilson would have beaten the Democrat. The split in the Republican party was such that either progressives or conservatives from the G.O.P. would have flocked to the Wilson side, depending on whether the nominee was the incumbent or the former President.56 More than with Wilson‘s victory, Taft was concerned that the Progressive party finished ahead of the Republican party. On the evening of the election, he issued a statement to the press claiming that the ―vote for Mr. Roosevelt, the third party candidate, and for Mr. Debs, the Socialist candidate, is a warning that their propaganda in favor of fundamental changes in our constitutional, representative government has formidable support.‖ While making it clear that he favored progress and the eradication of injustice, Taft warned that ―to sacrifice that which is of the highest value in our governmental structure for undefined and impossible reforms, is the wildest folly.‖57 A few days later, he suggested to one of his supporters the possibility of forming ―some organization which shall be ancillary to the organization and discipline of the Republican party, but which can be used to spread the propaganda of sound, constitutional government.‖ He was not sure that a platform could be erected to hold all the Republicans, with viewpoints as disparate as LaFollette‘s and his own. He thought sending out literature and speakers under the aegis of a ―Constitutional Club‖ would be useful, especially in the universities, to ―bring the youth and the professors down to earth.‖58 This would not be an enduring idea with Taft, but it expressed his feelings of the moment, in contrasting what he saw as the stalwart program of the regular Republicans in contrast to the unrealistic promises of the reformers. He need not have worried, at least as far as the Republican party was concerned. The fact the T.R. ran well ahead of nearly all other Progressive candidates marked the party as ephemeral, in spite of the fervent hopes of its leaders. Although there were signs in some states of a viable protest party, the disastrous results nationwide in Congressional and Gubernatorial races in 1914 clearly marked the group‘s demise. Finally, Roosevelt‘s decision not to accept the party‘s Presidential nomination in 1916 ended any hopes for continuation.59 Enough of the Progressives jumped to Wilson to enable his 56

Gould, Four Hats in the Ring, pp. 176-83 provides a thoughtful analysis of the outcome. ―Statement to the Press‖ dated November 5, 1912 in Taft Papers, Series 8, Reel 515. 58 WHT to Herbert Parsons, November 8, 1912. 59 Gable, Bull Moose Years, chaps. ix-x provides the best coverage of the Progressive demise. 57

154

Richard G. Frederick

victory over the Republican, Charles Evans Hughes, but the G.O.P. would regain the ascendancy through the 1920s. For better or worse, the Republican party of the Teens, Twenties, and beyond was associated with the more conservative policies for which Taft had been associated than with the reformist ideas of the pro-Roosevelt group. In respect to the Republican party, Taft was the ultimate victor over Roosevelt, a fact that Taft could readily see in the course of the 1920s. However, in respect to the ideas which would prevail in the last two-thirds of the 20th Century regarding the enhanced powers of the federal government, Roosevelt‘s ideas were much closer to the course of events in the New Deal and beyond, something which neither man would live to see. The 1912 election made clear the differing political philosophies that were emerging with the new century. It also made clear the delicate political finesse necessary to gain and maintain a following under changing conditions, particularly in the Republican party. This was not Taft‘s forte. One of his weaknesses, noted by many of his contemporaries, was his lack of political skills. Senator Lodge made a note of this a few weeks into the Presidency. While expressing a fondness for Taft, he found himself ―surprised that he has not, in all his years of public life, learned more about politics . . . one of the conditions with which a man has to deal, especially a President.‖60 The observation was later echoed by a former Senator, who wrote that Taft ―came into the presidency wholly unacquainted with ideas of party responsibility, party government, or adherence to party principles. And this led him into innumerable difficulties.‖61 Senator Jonathan Dolliver of Iowa was often quoted for his observation of Taft‘s political naivete: ―Taft is an amiable man, entirely surrounded by men who know exactly what they want.‖62 At the same time, Theodore Roosevelt was regarded as a master manipulator, able to work with both progressives and conservatives to accomplish his programs. Taft echoed this sentiment when he referred to T.R. as ―an extraordinary genius in politics‖ shortly after the election.63 Yet Roosevelt struggled mightily with the issues and personalities of the period encompassing Taft‘s Presidency. He was essentially a conservative in outlook on some issues, on which he saw eye to eye with party stalwarts like Henry 60

Lodge, ed. Selections from the Correspondence, II:334-35. Watson, As I Knew Them, p. 134. 62 Quoted in Stoddard, As I Knew Them, p. 369. 63 WHT to Mrs. Buckner A. Wallingford, Jr., November 9, 1912, quoted in de Chambrun, Making of Nicholas Longworth, p. 205. 61

The 1912 Debacle

155

Cabot Lodge and Elihu Root. Many of his own programs in 1912 contradicted his beliefs in 1908, the last year of his Presidency, when he had decided that Taft would be his worthy successor. When he broke with the Republican party, be took his supporters away not only from the conservative Old Guard, but also from some of the most advanced progressives in the party, including Robert M. LaFollette. The uncertainty and vicissitudes of reform made it difficult for even a political genius to chart a consistent and successful political course.64 With this in mind, Taft appears in a more positive light as President. While lacking political savvy, he nevertheless managed to assemble a strong list of legislative accomplishments in the face of insurgency in his own party and a Democratic majority in Congress after 1910. His friend, John Hays Hammond, explained that Taft had been forced early in his administration to choose one of the two conflicting groups within the G.O.P. to help him in carrying out ―Roosevelt‘s policies.‖ He decided on the ―stand-pat‖ group because they knew best how to achieve results, ―although their methods might not have been approved by reform elements.‖ Hammond labeled claims that the Old Guard used Taft ―emphatically not true.‖ ―Actually he used them instead of being used by them,‖ Hammond wrote. ―When Roosevelt‘s insurgent partisans later attacked Taft on these grounds, his defense was that an antagonized Cannon or Aldrich would have wrecked the legislative record of his administration.‖ ―His aim was progressive legislation,‖ he wrote of Taft, ―and he realized that they were the only instruments to serve his ends.‖65 In a similar vein, Taft‘s Treasury Secretary wrote that ―I have always regarded the President as the best progressive in the country, because of his ability to accomplish results.‖66 In any case, the final months of the Taft Presidency were mainly quiet ones. Far from being crushed by the electoral defeat, he seemed relieved to be emerging from under the great weight of the Presidency. He delivered a thoughtful speech at a banquet of the Lotos Club of New York two weeks after the election, which exemplified his feelings about the Presidency and the recent election. Biographer Henry Pringle called his address ―perhaps the best of his whole career.‖ After joking that ex-Presidents should be given a lotus 64

An excellent discussion of Roosevelt in the context of the issues of the times is found in John M. Cooper, Jr., Pivotal Decades: The United States, 1900-1920 (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1990), chap. vi. 65 Hammond, II:551-52. 66 Franklin MacVeagh to Robert P. Bass, June 19, 1911, Franklin MacVeagh Papers, Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress, Box 20.

156

Richard G. Frederick

leaf or chloroformed in order to keep them from troubling others, Taft turned serious to address the subject of the presidency. He made some recommendations, including limiting the office to a single, six-year term. He noted that the constant criticism encountered in the office tended to lead ―to indifference and perhaps to an indifference toward both just and unjust criticism.‖ He expressed his deep gratitude to his supporters and closed with a toast to his successor.67 The speech met with universal approval, as it signaled a thoughtful person who lost, and was leaving the nation‘s highest office with grace. It served as a fine valedictory address. The subject which Taft pondered in his final months in office was obvious – what to do next? Although he had managed to save $100,000 from his Presidential salary over the four years he served, this would not generate sufficient income to live in the style to which he and Nellie had become accustomed. He initially planned to move back to Cincinnati and take up the practice of law, something he had not done since his first judicial appointment in 1887. However, another opportunity arose late in 1912, when Yale President Arthur T. Hadley offered him a professorship. The timing was excellent. His always-positive feelings about Yale had been bolstered in 1912 when he was reelected to the Alumni post on the Yale Corporation by a huge margin over one other nominee—Gifford Pinchot!68 After consulting with family members, Taft quickly accepted the post. Although he would not be able to return to his beloved Cincinnati, the position had several attractive features. The salary was sufficient and he would not be involved in the practice of the law. ―I retire to the academic shades of Yale to teach it,‖ he wrote, ―and this very act takes me out of the maelstrom of politics. It is a dignified retirement . . . .‖69

67

Pringle, Taft, II:843-47. Edwin Rogers Embree to WHT, May 1, 1912. 69 Ibid., II: 847-50 (quote on p. 850). 68

Chapter 8

AFTER THE PRESIDENCY Following Woodrow Wilson‘s inaugural, Citizen Will Taft still had a long career of public service ahead of him. But the physical act of leaving the White House was difficult. According to White House major domo (and major gossip), Irwin (Ike) Hoover, both Tafts practically had to be carted out of the President‘s residence when it was no longer their own. Nellie had heroically entertained right to the end, with a large New Year‘s fete, a supper with Alice Roosevelt Longworth, and a dinner in honor of Frances Cleveland, the widow of President Grover Cleveland. During the Wilson inauguration, Nellie stayed in the White House with her daughter, spending her last hours in the residence finishing her correspondence and, presumably, reliving the good times of the past four years. When her announced time of departure arrived, she dawdled for an extra half-hour, then quietly took her leave. When Taft returned to the mansion with Wilson, he might have been expected to say his goodbyes and meet Nellie at a friend‘s residence, where they would leave for Union Station. Instead he had earlier accepted Wilson‘s polite invitation to stay for a repast. Since the luncheon was meant to be a celebration of the incoming Wilson administration, the presence of the ex-President was at least slightly uncomfortable for many of the diners. When Taft finally left, he went directly to the train station and slipped away from the capital.1 Taft‘s immediate future course was set. Will and Nellie, along with other family members who were available, would rest and relax in Augusta, 1

Hoover, 42 Years in the White House, pp. 52-57. Hoover disliked the Tafts, and wrote about Taft‘s presence at the luncheon as a faux pas, in which he stupidly and unexpectedly accepted an invitation offered just before the event began by Wilson, who was merely being polite. In fact, Taft had accepted the invitation some weeks earlier.

158

Richard G. Frederick

Georgia, where the ex-President could engage in a daily 18 holes of golf and other less strenuous activities such as playing bridge and reading newspapers and books. Taft was expected in New Haven on the first of April. With the Spring term already half-finished by then, he would not begin teaching regular courses until the Fall. His duties for the first months of residence would mainly consist of delivering a series of lectures to students during the month of May. ―I expect to take up my work in a desultory way during the spring but to work real hard in the fall,‖ he surmised.2 From expressions such as this, it may have seemed as if Taft intended to treat the Yale appointment as an extended vacation or, at best, a part-time vocation. In fact, the next eight years, combining his academic position with his speaking engagements and championing of causes, were to be some of the busiest of his life.

YALE Before leaving the White House, Taft openly addressed the Yale community about his forthcoming stay in New Haven. In a long letter to the Yale Daily News, printed on February 25, 1913, he wrote of the ―potent‖ and ―alluring‖ ―charm of the dear old University‖ to which he was now returning. Since he would be teaching courses in Constitutional law, he laid particular emphasis on that document, as he had been doing during the course of the 1912 election. What he wrote was reflective of what he had been saying during the campaign, when he weighed in against the radicalism of the Progressives and Socialists: ―There is need that our young men should appreciate the Constitution of the United States, under which we have enjoyed so many blessings and under which we must work out our political and economic salvation. And this need is especially keen in a day when that instrument is regarded so lightly by a class of fanatical enthusiasts seeking short cuts to economic perfection, on the one hand, and by unscrupulous demagogues who to promote their own interests do not hesitate to inculcate disrespect and even contempt for the Constitution and the laws enacted under it, on the other. . . .If I can help the men of Yale to know the value of our institutions and to appreciate the danger of accepting every nostrum that is offered and of abandoning those

2

WHT to CPT, March 21, 1913.

After the Presidency

159

foundations without which our government could not have been, I will be 3 thrice content.‖

His arrival in New Haven was certainly auspicious. He was notified the day before his arrival that the students had planned a ―rousing reception‖ for the occasion. They would meet the Tafts at the train station and escort them to the campus, where Taft could give ―a good Yale talk‖ from the balcony of Woolsey Hall. The secretary to Yale‘s President informed Taft that the students were responsible for all the planning and were ―very keen about it.‖4 The Tafts were overwhelmed by an event the local newspaper heralded as ―Second to no triumphal procession of any Caesar and surpassing any such celebration in the history of the college of the bulldog.‖ Students were allowed to cut classes for the two periods around noon, the hour of the Taft train‘s arrival from New York. An eight-man-wide parade estimated at a fifth of a mile long marched through a procession of onlookers in the streets of New Haven to the train station and back to the campus, where Taft gave a brief and cheery address to much of the student body and many of the faculty of Yale College. The Tafts then retired to the Taft Hotel, where they lodged for their first months in New Haven.5 The new professor was wined and dined throughout New Haven during April, but he also worked on the series of eight lectures he was to deliver in May. He took as his text the preamble to the Constitution, and dissected its various parts, from the meaning of ―We the people‖ to the relationship of judicial recall to the establishment of justice. Along with two addresses which he gave before the American Bar Association meeting in Montreal in 1912 (printed as numbers 8 and 9), the lectures were printed in 1913 by Yale University Press under the title, Popular Government: Its Essence, Its Permanence, and Its Perils.6 While the addresses were meant to be informative and instructive in their application to undergraduates, they are also indicative of Taft‘s political philosophy—perhaps the best indication of his attitudes toward the tide of reform that marked the period of his presidency. At the beginning of the first lecture, he noted his dissatisfaction with the modern criticism of fundamental and common law ―as not squaring with the 3

Frederick C. Hicks, William Howard Taft: Yale Professor of Law & New Haven Citizen (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1945), pp. 6-8. 4 Anson Phelps Stokes, Jr. to WHT, March 31, 1913. 5 Hicks, William Howard Taft, pp. 15-23. 6 Page numbers in the discussion below are from the edition of the book found in Volume V of the Collected Works of WHT.

160

Richard G. Frederick

proper civic and social and economic ideals of today.‖ (17) He went on to extol popular government, but as a means, not an end. The Constitution, as adopted by the people, places certain restraints on the will of the majority in the interest of safeguarding ―the happiness of the individual and his progress.‖ (21) He further noted that when the Constitution was adopted, ―we the people‖ formed only a minority of the population of the country, but that it was always understood that this group represented the entirety of the population. In succeeding decades, the electorate did not include the majority of the population, but male voters represented their female and minor family members. This observation led directly to the second lecture, in which he expostulated on the representative system, noting at the outset that a ―truly democratic government,‖ in which every individual votes, is impossible. He explained the working of representative democracy, in which the government functions as the agent of individuals, and in which the party system is a necessity. His argument with the advanced progressives was stated clearly in this second lecture. Taft saw the present system as one which worked, in its essentials. He cited as evidence the need for control of corporate power in the late 19th Century, which occurred, due to large-scale public protests and government response. But some reformers desired to change how the political system worked, by introducing measures such as the initiative, referendum, and recall, to give voters more direct control. Still others desired to expand the functions of government to include greater social control. Taft‘s position was not to change the government‘s basic structure and, in any event, to proceed cautiously. ―There is nothing to show that all legitimate governmental purposes sought by the so-called Progressives may not be promoted and brought about under the representative system,‖ he stated. But deliberation was necessary. ―Great reforms should not be brought about overnight. They need time. They should be marked by careful consideration.‖ (37) In subsequent lectures, Taft attacked the initiative, referendum, and recall. He turned somewhat alarmist in these discussions, using terms like ―cranks‖ and ―nostrums‖ to deride what he saw as useless or harmful adjuncts to the democratic system. He differentiated these bad reforms from the direct primary in another lecture, but he still found fault with the primaries, particularly in his contention that members of one party could seize control of a rival by flooding its primary election. In lecture six, a discussion of the relationship between the federal government and the states, Taft provided a brief history of the Supreme Court‘s role in promoting stronger federal authority through interpretations of the Constitution in the 19th Century. He

After the Presidency

161

then followed with a discussion of some present-day political issues involving the expansion of federal power. He ended with a mention of the ―New Nationalist School‖ that stressed such an expansion, in the belief that effective change could not be accomplished within the states. ―They are in favor of national ‗hair trigger‘ legislation,‖ he opined, ―and anything that has to depend upon the action of the forty-eight different States can never be of that kind.‖ (99) Lectures 7-9 all treated the subject of the courts. The central feature of the first was the discussion of recent attempts to implement the recall of judges and judicial decisions. Taft quoted at length from his veto of the Arizona statehood bill, on the grounds that the proposed new state constitution contained a provision for recalling judges. Taft made it clear then that the courts should be inviolate to the will of the popular majority. As to the recall of judicial decision, Taft thoroughly ridiculed the notion. He explained that proponents of the plan found sanction in a statement of Justice Holmes, then went on to argue that Holmes meant nothing of the sort in his argument. Subjecting judicial decisions to popular elections would lead to ―a government by special instances, a government that in the end necessarily leads to despotism.‖ (113) In lectures 8 and 9, delivered before the American Bar Association the previous fall, he discussed the appointment and tenure of judges and made suggestions about changes in legal education. The lectures finished on a rather weak note, with a discussion of executive authority over the military, war, and peace. Taft felt under-prepared to deliver the addresses, preferring to make a start in the Fall term, after several months of research and writing. However, as he noted, ―I think the College wanted a little bit of the advertisement of the thing and wished me to anticipate next year somewhat.‖ Any trepidation he may have felt about the project was offset by his opportunity to set the record straight, not only about his political positions, but about the development of the Constitution and the legal system. He complained to Elihu Root about the foolish professors of Political Economy and Philosophy in the universities. He was particularly incensed by Charles Beard‘s ―muckraking‖ Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, published the previous year.7 He would address the book, though not by name, in the first lecture in the series. In another letter to Root, he expressed indignation over the recent ―disquisitions of modern sociological jurists, or jural sociologists and economists,‖ who, ―with their assumptions of omniscience shake the 7

WHT to Elihu Root, May 5, 1913, Root Papers, Box 166.

162

Richard G. Frederick

foundations of law as I have been trained to know them.‖ His proposed remedy? ―It would seem as if we would have to begin the education of the American people in first principles of fundamental law all over again.‖8 Taft‘s initial Yale lectures were aimed at doing precisely that. He was now engaged in the field of education, and he meant to educate! There was much to do before the Fall term. The Tafts rented a large house on Prospect Street in New Haven, which would serve them well for entertaining and gracious living. Will quickly settled into a routine of playing golf four times a week which, he joked, resulted in ―making my game worse each time, it seems.‖ He played almost daily when the family moved to their summer cottage, now back in Murray Bay. More importantly, the golf and sensible dieting resulted in weight loss. He weighed at least 340 pounds during his Presidency; by May 20, he had already shed 30 pounds. He would continue to exercise by riding and playing golf and to diet, which he claimed was much easier after leaving Washington, with its attendant banquets and formal dinners. By the end of the year, he weighed 270, and would maintain that weight, and even a bit less, until the end of his life.9 Taft‘s teaching regimen at Yale was not particularly arduous. As Kent Professor of Law in the general College, his main duty was to deliver lectures twice a week before a senior-level class. He assigned a standard Constitutional Law textbook, and delivered lectures from hand-written notes that closely followed the chapters in the text. He originally used the recitation method in the classroom as a check on students‘ preparation, but switched to the more popular weekly papers after realizing that only a small percentage of the students were served by the former method. In the first year, he graded the papers himself, but was assigned assistants when the size of the burden became apparent. Students in his elective class initially numbered over 100, but that number declined, especially during the war years when College registration was generally lower.10 Taft also volunteered to teach in the Law School, and was appointed to its general faculty just before moving to New Haven. Unlike the class in the general curriculum, his American Constitutional Law course in the Law School was a required offering for third- year law students during the first three years he taught it, from 1913-1916. He nominally used the case method of instruction, which had then been adopted by the leading law schools in the 8

WHT to Elihu Root, May 1, 1913, ibid. WHT to Walter Lowrie Fisher, Fisher Papers, Box 1; Ross, American Family, p. 270. 10 Hicks, William Howard Taft, chap. iii, passim. 9

After the Presidency

163

country, assigning textbooks of cases on the subject. However, in many of his classes, he wandered from the text to share his own experiences with some facet of the case or with the lawyers and judges involved in it. He assigned great amounts of material for review, resulting in tests that became famous for running well beyond the four-hour regulation period.11 In addition to his teaching responsibilities, Taft served as a sort of figurehead for Yale. He spoke at University gatherings, addressed alumni on and off campus, and participated in fund-raising activities. He used some of his old contacts to help raise $2 million for the medical school in 1914. He approached Philander Knox to use some of his Pennsylvania connections to secure a sizeable donation, suggesting that Knox contact both Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick. Knox suggested he write Frick directly, although Taft was reluctant to do so, ―lest he come at me on the question of the United States Steel Company suit which rankles in his mind.‖12 For all of his responsibilities to the University, Taft was paid an annual salary of $5,000, not exactly a princely sum in comparison with the $75,000 (with $25,000 for expenses) he had drawn as President. Knowing that he could not live on that amount, he planned to supplement his earnings by lecturing and writing articles for the magazines. While he was still delivering his initial lecture series at Yale, he already had plans to give four addresses at Amherst, six at the University of Minnesota, and unspecified numbers at the University of Minnesota and Boston University.13 His private secretary, Wendell W. Mischler, arranged a lecture schedule that had Taft present at gatherings ranging from political conventions to ladies‘ club luncheons, always for a fee.14 Although he seldom missed a class at Yale, he entrained in his spare time for dozens of destinations to deliver his views on issues of the day. Being out of politics seemed to bring a renewed capacity for work. All in all, Taft was a Yale Professor from April 1913 until July 1921, when he resigned to accept his appointment on the Supreme Court. He had a University leave of absence during the 1918-1919 school year, and again in 1920-21, prior to his leaving the post.

11

Ibid., chap. iv. Taft to Philander C. Knox, April 21, 1914, Knox Papers, Cont. 20. 13 WHT to Walter Lowrie Fisher, May 20, 1913, Fisher Papers, Box 1; WHT to CPT, November 20, 1912. 12

164

Richard G. Frederick

WAR AND PEACE While Taft was a frequent writer and speaker on public affairs in the years following his presidency, he tended to avoid the excesses of partisan criticism of the Wilson administration. He privately expressed concern over some of the directions the Democratic administration took, but he maintained a distanced though cordial relationship with the President. Wilson appointed him the chairman of the commission to oversee the erection of the Lincoln Memorial on the mall in Washington.15 When Taft did write critically about the Wilson program, he did it in the spirit of philosopher-statesman and scholar, as in the case of anti-trust law in 1914. The Democrats proposed to amend the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which they claimed was not entirely effective in the first place and had been rendered less effective by Supreme Court rulings in 1911. Those court cases had decreed that a ―rule of reason‖ should be applied in government prosecutions of corporations to distinguish between ethical business practices and actions which were unfair and manipulative. Congressional Democrats introduced two bills to amend and strengthen the Sherman Act—the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. Taft thought that the Sherman Act was specific enough and that the matter was best left to the courts to be decided on a case-by-case basis. His closely-reasoned book on the subject was published in 1914 as The Anti-trust Act and the Supreme Court.16 Taft‘s argument in the essay is often compelling. It certainly expresses the viewpoint of one who is enamored with the role of the judiciary in the federal system. The conclusion restates his argument that the Sherman Act was nonspecific for a purpose, and not in need of amendment: ―The very value of the statute under the view the Supreme Court has taken of it is its general and widely inclusive language, which embraces every form of scheme to suppress competition and control prices and effect monopoly.‖ To Taft, this leads to the simple question, ―What else does the legislator desire?‖17 Logical or not, 14

Pringle, Taft, II:856-57. Taft‘s speaking fees ranged from $150 to $1,000; Pringle estimates the average at around $400. His magazine articles often brought $1,000. 15 A large file of documents relating to the Commission are found in the Root Papers, Box 166. Root returned to Washington as Senator from New York, and was instrumental in addressing many of the conflicts that arose over the monument‘s construction. The Memorial was presented to President Harding and the nation in a January 1922 ceremony. 16 The book was published by Harper & Brothers. A reprint is found in Volume V of Collected Works of WHT, pp. 161-242. 17 Ibid., p. 242.

After the Presidency

165

Taft‘s argument did not carry the day, since both the Clayton and Federal Trade Commission Acts were passed. The one area where Taft kept his views out of the public forum was foreign policy. While he did not agree with Wilson‘s non-recognition of the Huerta government in Mexico, and thought Bryan was an inadequate Secretary of State (the word he used frequently in private correspondence was ―ass‖ in writing about the Nebraskan), he also did not publicly decry the Administration‘s foreign affairs. His silence was purposeful and sprang from patriotic motives. He told a friend that such criticism would ―not be in good taste.‖ In foreign policy, he wrote, ―I believe it our duty to uphold [the President] in whatever he does and wait until afterwards if we have any criticism to make. He is entitled to our standing by him in order to make the policies successful if possible.‖18 Taft‘s resolution on this point would be sorely tested over the next few years, as the Great War unexpectedly inflamed Europe and ultimately the United States. Taft had expressed a misplaced optimism about world affairs just a few months before the war broke out in Europe. Published in May 1914, The United States and Peace was the title of a collection of four lectures he presented before the New York Peace Society in 1913 and published in Hamilton Holt‘s magazine, The Independent. Taft stressed the principles of peaceful arbitration of international disputes and some form of world federation. The latter would feature a supreme world court to which all the nations would pledge to abide its decisions in settling international conflicts. Once again, Taft foresaw the solution to problems through a strong and independent judiciary. He predicted that such a system of federation would come about in a few decades, perhaps a half-century. Instead, the worst war in history was on the horizon.19 Taft was as surprised and shocked at the outbreak of war in 1914 as the average American. Naturally, as a former President, his comments about the war were solicited by the press. Just as naturally, his statements were invariably less bellicose than those of the other living ex-President, Theodore Roosevelt. In keeping with his earlier opinion on the subject, Taft did not publicly criticize Wilson‘s efforts to maintain neutrality, and he privately

18

WHT to Walter L. Fisher, January 3, 1914, Fisher Papers, Box 2. For Taft‘s views on Mexico, see WHT to Elihu Root, November 8, 1913, Root Papers, Box 166. 19 Charles Scribner‘s Sons published the original edition of the book, which is also found in Volume VI of Collected Works of WHT, pp. 119-200.

166

Richard G. Frederick

corresponded with the President to offer his own advice.20 He largely stayed out of the limelight. He actively promoted an organization whose program did not encompass the ending of the Great War, but the prevention of future wars. This was the League to Enforce Peace, founded in the Spring of 1915. Taft was elected the group‘s president at a meeting in Independence Hall in Philadelphia on June 17. The League‘s aims were to invite the nations of the world to become signatories to an agreement that would place international disputes in the realm of an international judicial body for settlement by negotiation. The signatory nations would also agree to use their combined military strength to punish aggressor nations. This was clearly a plan that merged with Taft‘s earlier interest in arbitration treaties and his call for jurisprudence on a world scale. He engaged in money-raising and publicity campaigns for the League to Enforce Peace until the League of Nations emerged from postwar peace negotiations.21 When the United States ultimately entered the war in April of 1917, Taft again publicly approved the President‘s course. The only time the two men were openly at odds was during the campaign of 1916. When Charles Evans Hughes emerged as the logical choice of the Republican party seeking to heal the wounds of the 1912 Progressive split, Taft was an enthusiast. In April, months before the nominating convention, he wrote two long letters to Hughes assuring him of the rectitude of stepping down from the Supreme Court to run.22 He later offered to assume whatever role Hughes desired for him in the campaign, though he cautioned that perhaps his contribution should not be too prominent. ―I am a little bit like a red flag to a bull, so far as the professional labor element is concerned,‖ he wrote.23 What he did do was author an extremely critical article on Wilson and the Democratic party, which was published in the Yale Review in October. He led with the contention that Wilson‘s selection of William Jennings Bryan for Secretary of State was motivated purely by domestic policy considerations and had led to ―amateur diplomacy and statesmanship.‖ After berating the administration‘s Mexican policy at length, he moved on to a consideration of domestic programs. He pronounced the Democratic party ―not a constructive party,‖ and assailed Wilson on labor, the tariff, and income taxes. He sought to 20

Pringle, Taft, II, chap. xlv offers examples of Taft‘s private and public statements. Ruhl J. Bartlett, The League to Enforce Peace (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1944), pp. 35-41. 22 WHT to Charles Evans Hughes, April 11 and 13, 1916, Hughes Papers, Reel 3. 23 WHT to Charles Evans Hughes, September 13, 1916, ibid. 21

After the Presidency

167

show that Wilson had changed his stance on many issues, concluding ―that Mr. Wilson has few, if any, convictions on the issues of the day which exigency in the field of politics may not induce him to give up.‖24 Taft‘s motivation in writing the article, he told Hughes, was ―to have it understood that the attitude of the Regulars in your support was as sincere and earnest as that of the Progressives.‖25 Taft‘s attitude during the election did not deter Wilson from making use of his services when they were needed during the war. With thousands of war contracts let by the government, it was essential to maintain, as much as possible, harmony between management and labor. In fact, there were literally thousands of strikes recorded between America‘s entry into the war and early 1918. Attempts to deal with such strife on a contract-by-contract basis were futile. By early 1918, Wilson‘s advisors recommended an independent board to handle labor relations, including wages, collective bargaining, and open shop issues in government contracts. In April 1918, the National War Labor Board sprang into existence, with five union members and five representatives of the employers. Wilson named Taft and Kansas City attorney Frank P. Walsh as co-chairmen.26 When the Board was appointed, Wilson named Taft and Walsh ―representatives of the general public.‖ To most observers, this misconstrued the chairs‘ positions on the subject of labor relations. Walsh, the former Chairman of the United States Commission on Industrial Relations (1913-15), was widely considered to be a friend of the working man and a proponent of organized labor. Taft, on the other hand, was perceived as a foe to labor organization, due to his rulings from the bench in the late 19th Century. Although he had signed the bill creating the Department of Labor at the end of his Presidency, he had not been a supporter of the act. Later, he expressed concern that the Democrats were ―surrendering everything to Gompers‖ and that the party ―has boldly avowed its desire to make labor unions a favored

24

WHT, ―The Democratic Record,‖ Yale Review 6 (October 1916): 1-25. Privately, Taft wrote of his contempt for Wilson at this time as a ―ruthless hypocrite.‖ See Arthur Link, Wilson: Campaigns for Progressivism and Peace, 1916-1917 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1965), p. 141. 25 WHT to Charles Evans Hughes, September 13, 1916, Hughes Papers, Reel 3. 26 Valerie Jean Conner, The National War Labor Board: Stability, Social Justice, and the Voluntary State in World War I (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983) is the standard work on the subject.

168

Richard G. Frederick

class.‖27 He was expected to be the spokesman for management offsetting the liberal Walsh. In fact, Taft acted judiciously as a member of the Board, basing decisions, not on past prejudices or preconceptions, but upon present realities. He was often appalled by conditions under which men and women worked. He was entirely supportive of the principles under which the Board operated, including the guarantee of a living wage, the right to join or not to join unions, and the right of both employers and employees to organize and bargain collectively. Furthermore, contrary to many expectations, Taft got along well with Walsh, whom he had earlier criticized for his radical positions. The NWLB exhibited positive results during its life for a number of reasons. Not the least of these was the presence of former President Taft; when he sided with labor groups, which he often did, the public respected his opinions and realized the necessity for changing conditions.28 The Board met for a period of just over a year, disbanding finally in June, 1919. Even before his work on the NWLB ended, Taft was engaged in the great crusade for the League of Nations. Beginning in late 1918, prior to the Armistice agreement ending the war, Taft was delivering addresses emphasizing the League to Enforce Peace idea of international organization. Now was the time, Taft declared, as the war was clearly being won by the Allied nations, to create an organization to guarantee continuing peace. Shortly after the Armistice, he addressed a group of editors and publishers in New York and hammered this theme. The United States had reluctantly entered into the war, he stated, but Wilson had clearly articulated the country‘s purpose for entry: to make the world safe for democracy. This could be accomplished only one way at the peace negotiations in Paris. ―I say this with deference, but if there is not a League of Nations created in Paris the whole thing is a failure— and I do not think they are going to make a failure at Paris,‖ he declared.29 In speeches around the country and a in series of articles published in the Philadelphia Public Ledger, Taft defended, first, the idea of a League of Nations, then the actual League as promulgated by Wilson and the other Paris conferees. He initially criticized Wilson for not having a specific plan for the League. ―His attitude is that of one seeking a plan which will encounter no 27

WHT to Elihu Root, September 16, 1914, Root Papers, Box 166. Pringle, Taft, II: chap. xlviii, passim. 29 Taft Papers on the League of Nations; Volume VII of Collected Works of WHT, p. 145. The book, a collection of documents and speeches and articles by Taft, was edited by Theodore Marburg and Horace E. Flack and published in 1920 by the MacMillan Company. Page numbers in the text refer to the edition found in the Collected Works. 28

After the Presidency

169

objections either in the congress at Paris or the congress at Washington,‖ he wrote on January 20, 1919. (194) A month later in an address in Oregon, he was able to discuss a draft of the covenant of the League which had emerged from a committee in Paris. Not only was his review quite favorable, but he was also able to deal with some of the objections raised by Washington‘s Senator Poindexter, an old antagonist from his Presidential days. His perambulations through the West included speeches in San Francisco and Salt Lake City, where he assured audiences that the League was the only guarantee for permanent peace for the coming generations. ―Is not this the time when enduring peace is to be born—when everybody is impressed with the dreadful character of war, and the necessity for avoiding it, when all the nations are willing to make concessions?‖ he asked in Salt Lake City. (235-36) He ended his Western tour with an address in St. Louis on February 25 at a convention on the League of Nations. He leveled heavy criticism at the ―irreconcilable‖ Senators who had come out against the League, such as Poindexter, James Reed of Missouri, and William E. Borah of Idaho, dismissing them as ―merely destructive critics.‖ (240) Back in New York on March 4, he explained what parts of the Covenant meant to the United States, specifically Article X, which critics charged could drag the United States into a war without the consent of Congress. Taft demurred from this interpretation, and claimed that the language of the document would not interfere with American sovereignty in any way. Furthermore, he upheld the League as the bulwark against another danger on the horizon—―the threatening specter of Bolshevism, hard, cruel, murderous, uncompromising, destructive of Christian civilization, militant in pressing its hideous doctrines upon other peoples, and insidious in its propaganda among the lowest element in every country.‖(248) A week later, at another address in New York, he specifically countered arguments put forth by his former Secretary of State, Philander Knox. He traveled to Georgia in March and Kansas City in April, where he further argued for the League. In an April article in the Public Ledger, he criticized another old friend, Elihu Root, who had raised objections to the League Covenant. While Taft was a firm proponent of United States participation in the League, he was concerned about some of the provisions in the Covenant. He was not altogether dismissive of the reservations proposed by a group of Senators led by Henry Cabot Lodge, and felt Wilson should consider several of them. In fact, when President Wilson embarked on a nationwide trip in the fall to sell the treaty to the American public, Taft expressed his jaundiced opinion of Wilson in his correspondence. ―The President‘s attitude in not

170

Richard G. Frederick

consenting to any reservations at all is an impossible one,‖ he wrote, ―and grows out of a persistent determination to be blind to facts that he does not like.‖30 As the treaty failed to win acceptance in the Senate, Taft heaped further blame on Wilson for his inflexibility. By the time of the 1920 election, the treaty had been defeated in three separate votes in the Senate. The Democratic Presidential candidate, James Cox pledged to pursue American entry into the League; Warren G. Harding and the Republican platform were ambiguous on the subject. (Cox claimed in a speech in October that Harding had taken eleven different positions on the League issue.31) Taft was convinced that Harding was the best chance for ultimate U.S. League membership. In the collection of his papers on the subject published as a book in October, he announced his support for Harding, in the belief that he would be able to push a League with reservations through the Senate, with support from Republicans and a minority of Democrats.32 Taft was not the only prominent Republican flummoxed by Harding‘s equivocation on the issue. Thirty-one of them, including William Allen White, Charles Evans Hughes, and Henry L. Stimson, signed a statement in October declaring their belief that ―we can most effectively advance the cause of international cooperation to promote peace by supporting Mr. Harding for election to the presidency.‖33 Harding, of course, won the election and did not take the United States into the League of Nations. Taft‘s support of his fellow Ohioan was important for another reason, however, and led finally to the achievement of the goal he had pursued for most of his public career.

CHIEF JUSTICE Taft was granted a leave of absence for the 1920-21 school year at Yale. He had spent the past few years doing double duty—teaching at Yale was interspersed with trips on behalf of the League to Enforce Peace, the League of Nations, and the National War Labor Board. But his sabbatical year was not meant as a vacation. He still traveled and gave speeches. He spent time in 30

Quoted in Pringle, Taft, II:948; cf. Robert H. Ferrell, Woodrow Wilson & World War I, 19171921 (New York: Harper & Row, 1985), pp. 172-73. 31 Washington Post, October 13, 1920, p. 1. 32 Collected Works of WHT, VII:xiii-xiv. 33 Washington Post, October 15, 1920, p. 4.

After the Presidency

171

Montreal as a member of an arbitration team to establish the valuation of the Canadian Grand Trunk Railroad, which was being sold to the Canadian government. Nevertheless, he had time to vacation with Nellie in Bermuda for a month in January of 1921 and in Murray Bay that summer. The Tafts also moved into a new house in New Haven, selling the large home they had bought only a year earlier. They would live there temporarily with son Charlie, his wife, and their two children while Charlie completed his studies at Yale Law School. (He graduated, in the Taft mode, with highest honors.) When Chief Justice Edward White became ill early in 1921, Taft‘s hopes for the position rose, but nothing was decided for several months. After White‘s death on May 19, President Harding considered several options, even though he had all but promised the position to Taft the previous December. Taft was finally nominated in late June and quickly confirmed by the Senate, with only a few opposing votes from old foes such as Robert M. LaFollette and William E. Borah. Following a brief respite in Murray Bay, the Tafts moved to Washington, settling in a house on Wyoming Avenue, from which Taft could walk the three miles to the Capitol each morning.34 The Supreme Court which Taft joined held several familiar faces, though not all were friendly ones. He had appointed two of the judges, Willis Van Devanter and Mahlon Pitney. A third, William Rufus Day, had sat with Taft on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals back in the 1890s. The most interesting of the jurists were a pair that would often find themselves arrayed opposite Taft in important decisions—Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and Louis D. Brandeis. Holmes was a Roosevelt appointee who served on the Court for nearly three decades. A Civil War veteran from Boston, Holmes is generally regarded as one of the greatest of all Supreme Court justices. He was especially noted for his forceful dissenting opinions. Brandeis was one of the architects of Woodrow Wilson‘s New Freedom program, and was an outstanding liberal voice on the Court after his confirmation in 1916, a confirmation publicly opposed by Taft. Rounding out the Court were Joseph McKenna, a McKinley appointee from California, James C. McReynolds, a sarcastic and intemperate defender of laissez-faire conservatism, and John H. Clarke, a progressive Democrat from Ohio. Clarke resigned after Taft‘s first year on the Court and was replaced by a conservative Utah Senator, George Sutherland, who would most often be found in the conservative bloc with the Chief Justice on controversial cases. President Harding made two additional 34

Alpheus Thomas Mason, William Howard Taft: Chief Justice (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1964), pp. 76-87; Ross, An American Family, pp. 325-29.

172

Richard G. Frederick

appointments to the Court, who would also add to the conservative bloc during the 1920s—Pierce Butler, a conservative Democrat, replaced Day in 1922 and Edward Sanford, a federal district court judge from Tennessee, replaced Pitney early in 1923.35 As Chief Justice, Taft took it upon himself to accomplish much more than the routine administration of the Court‘s cases. He had long called for a reform of the federal judiciary, involving both structural changes and procedural reforms to make the Court operate more efficiently. He was now in a position to take the lead in accomplishing these ends. In doing so, he became a oneman lobby through the press, the American Bar Association, and, most importantly, members of Congress, since legislation was needed to encompass the changes Taft sought. He displayed astute politicking, something he had not always accomplished as President, in dealing with Congress. Although the Senate Judiciary Committee seemed stacked against him, he had the support of some long-time Senators like Albert B. Cummins of Iowa, the head of the Committee, who had followed Roosevelt in 1912, but firmly backed Taft in his reform efforts during the 1920s.36 Taft‘s labors produced two pieces of legislation. The first was the Judicial Conference and Transfer Act of 1922. The bill created the Judicial Conference, chaired by the Chief Justice, with members consisting of judges from each circuit and the chief judges of the courts of appeals. Committees were created at the Judicial Conference, which reported directly to the Chief Justice. These would be concerned with matters such as court procedures, better defining the rules of evidence, and the transfer of judges. Taft occasionally added items to the agenda which were not specified in the original law, such as determining uniform punishments for Prohibition violators. While Taft mainly used the conferences for the purpose of maintaining proper caseloads, he found them a useful administrative tool, and one which increased the autonomy of the judicial branch. As one historian

35

Brief biographies of all the judges who served with Taft are found in Peter G. Renstrom, The Taft Court: Justices, Rulings, and Legacy (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2003), chap. ii. More expansive treatments are found in Leon Friedman and Fred L. Israel, ed., The Justices of the Supreme Court, 1789-1995 (5 Vols., New York: Chelsea House, 1995), Vol. III. 36 Mason, William Howard Taft, chap. iv; Justin Crowe, ―The Forging of Judicial Autonomy: Political Entrepreneurship and the Reforms of William Howard Taft,‖ Journal of Politics 69 (February 2007): 73-87.

After the Presidency

173

remarked, ―Taft became the first chief justice to lead the federal judiciary in a meaningful way.‖37 The second bill, also largely achieved by Taft‘s efforts, was the Judiciary Act of 1925, usually referred to as the ―Judges‘ Bill.‖ Meant primarily to lessen the ever-increasing load of cases heard before the Supreme Court, involving such Twenties issues as the income tax, postwar readjustment, and Prohibition, the bill expanded the discretion of the justices to select their cases. Beginning in 1925, the Court reviewed petitions for writs of certiorari—the submission of lower courts‘ decisions for review—and made rulings on the petitions. Affirmative votes on a petition by at least four justices would ensure that the case was heard by the Court. Otherwise, the petition could be rejected without any ruling on the merits of the case. This procedure, which is still followed, assured not only that the Supreme Court could operate more efficiently without a deluge of cases, but also that the Court would allot its time to the cases that were most important from the standpoint of precedents and the Constitution. Although he did not succeed in the third of his proposed reforms, the overhaul of the judicial codes relating to rules of procedure, Taft‘s administrative achievements were substantial and long-reaching. In the opinion of one Court historian, ―As judicial architect, Taft ranks second only to Oliver Ellsworth, who originally devised the judicial system.‖38 The dynamics of the Court also had much to do with Taft. In addition to appointing two of the Justices, Pitney and Van Devanter, he was instrumental in guiding Harding‘s choices of three Associate Justices, George Sutherland, Pierce Butler, and Edward Sanford. The qualities he looked for in an Associate were the ability to shoulder his share of the work and a conservative outlook on Constitutional matters. He expressed the conviction that academics such as Felix Frankfurter of Harvard were determined to break down the Constitution, and had influenced Wilson‘s choices of Brandeis and Clarke for the Court. He found McReynolds too reactionary, but sought ―men who are liberal but who still believe that the corner stone of our civilization is in the proper maintenance of the guarantees of the 14th Amendment and the 5th Amendment.‖39 All of the Harding choices met the Taft standard. The conservative core of the Court was set for the decade of the 1920s. 37

David H. Burton, Taft, Holmes, and the 1920s Court: An Appraisal (Madison, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickenson University Press, 1998), p. 120. 38 Alpheus Thomas Mason, ―William Howard Taft, 1857-1930,‖ in Friedman and Israel, eds., Justices of the United States Supreme Court, III:2109. 39 WHT to Elihu Root, December 21, 1922, Root Papers, Box 166.

174

Richard G. Frederick

One other aspect of Taft‘s leadership on the Court was his ability to get along with the other Justices and to mold them into a body in which there was general agreement on cases in spite of wide differences on principles and, sometimes, on personalities. (McReynolds, for example, did not get along particularly well with anyone.) Taft worked hard on ―massing‖ the Court to achieve unanimous opinions. Aside from Brandeis and Holmes, dissents were relatively few during Taft‘s terms from 1921-1929. Nearly 90% of all the rulings in this period were unanimous. Fewer than 1% were decided by a single vote (5-4 or 4-3).40 Taft‘s judicial bent was definitely toward conservatism. This stemmed largely from his belief in the primacy of private property in the American system. While he had addressed this subject in earlier writings, nowhere did he state his beliefs as explicitly as in the 1920s, a politically conservative era in which his ideas meshed with those of the dominant Republican party. He made the most direct statement on the subject in a lecture he delivered at the University of Rochester in 1922. He noted that the Constitution ―rests on personal liberty and the right of property, and that the former ―includes the right of property as it includes the right of contract and the right of labor.‖ He defined the right of property as the essential right to act freely with the fruits of his labors, and claimed that such a right motivated the individual and caused progress. ―Destroy it and material progress ceases,‖ he said. While he admitted that materialism, selfishness, and plutocracy might result from the pursuit of wealth, he warned that ―these evils must not blind us, as they do blind many well-intentioned, dreamy reformers, to the fact that personal liberty and the right of property are indispensable to any possible useful progress of society.‖41 Along with Taft‘s opinions on the sanctity of private property were related opinions on organized labor. As he pointed out many times during his career, he was not antagonistic to labor, and his work on the National War Labor Board had borne out his contention. However, many Americans viewed the wave of strikes during 1919 as indicative of the radicalization of labor, if not as an outright influence of the Russian Revolution, which occurred during the war and promised a ―workers‘ paradise.‖ Beginning with the earliest cases for which he wrote the majority opinions, Taft showed his opposition to the 40 41

Renstrom, Taft Court, pp. 190-91. The lecture was published as Liberty Under Law in 1922; it is reprinted in Collected Works of WHT, VIII:3-18. The discussion of private property is on p. 9. The remainder of this volume of the collected works is a digest of opinions written by Taft in the major cases heard by his court.

After the Presidency

175

interests of labor. In both American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council and Truax v. Corrigan, the Court overturned lower-court rulings favorable to labor groups, by limiting the right to picket and striking down an anti-injunction law. Both cases also established some limitations on Section 20 of the Clayton Anti-Trust Act, which was meant to establish labor rights.42 On the surface, the case brought by the United Mine Workers against the Coronado Mining Company appeared to be a victory for the union, which was suing the company for breaching its contract with the miners. However, the Taft opinion in 1922 also held that unions could be sued, under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.43 Taft‘s most interesting opinion on a labor-related case came in 1923, in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital. In an attempt to have consensus prevail, Taft rarely dissented. But in this case, involving a minimum wage for women in the District of Columbia, Taft wrote a dissenting opinion to the majority opinion which struck down the law. While he was skeptical whether a more general application of a minimum wage was ―a useful remedy‖ for the long hours and poor pay found in sweatshops, he felt that, in this instance, applied to women, the law was sustained by legal precedents. He made the statement that ―it is not the function of this Court to hold congressional acts invalid simply because they are passed to carry out economic views which the Court believes to be unwise or unsound.‖44 This was a particularly fascinating statement, since it appeared to most observers that, in fact, the Taft Court was marked by judicial activism, largely demonstrated by ruling against economic views contrary to the prevailing conservative views of the Court‘s majority, which included the Chief Justice. In any event, Taft was back on a more conservative course a few months later, writing the opinion for a unanimous Court in Wolff v. Court of Industrial Relations. The industrial relations body had been established in Kansas as a progressive measure designed to lessen labor strife in the state. Among the powers of the court were the rights to compel owners and workers in ―essential‖ industries to continue working while resolving labor disputes, and to establish prices and wages in the interim. In terms of contracts, and rights relating to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, Taft wrote that ―Freedom is the general rule and restraint the exception.‖ Taft pooh-poohed the notion that producers of food and clothing were operating in the ―public interest,‖ as the 42

Ibid., VIII:23-36. Ibid., VIII:73-78. 44 Ibid., VIII: 123-27 (quote on p. 124). 43

176

Richard G. Frederick

Kansas court contended, and ruled that the Industrial Court had overstepped its regulatory bounds. The argument effectively ended most significant attempts at business regulation in the states during the 1920s.45 Constitutional scholar Paul Murphy explained that Taft‘s approach to protecting property interests involved the use of both broad and narrow precedents. He took the broad approach, meaning the expansion of federal authority, to regulate ―activities detrimental to or of no consequence to legitimate business.‖ By interpreting federal power over commerce broadly, the Court could strike down state regulatory attempts with the argument that such actions were reserved to the federal government. However, the Taft bloc also used narrow precedents in some cases to inhibit actions by federal lawmakers. The Constitutional amendment of choice in these cases was the Tenth, which reserved powers to the states. The problem with this approach was that it ―necessitated a steady exercise in legal line-drawing by the justices, and injection of concepts of judicial reasonableness.‖ While Taft found this to his liking—it enhanced the Court‘s powers—the process was unsatisfactory to others for its subjective application.46 Not all of the Court‘s cases were economic in nature, of course. One of the more significant rulings during Taft‘s tenure addressed the powers of the President. In Myers v. United States (1926), Taft wrote the majority opinion in a 6-3 split over the President‘s right to remove a postmaster. He combined historical research with his own administrative experience to produce a 70page argument that one historian calls ―his greatest state paper.‖47 In it, he argued that the President needs to have confidence in his subordinates, in order for the executive branch to function effectively. ―The moment that he loses confidence in the intelligence, ability, judgment or loyalty of any one of them, he must have the power to remove him without delay.‖48 In statements such as these, the Ballinger-Pinchot controversy of the Taft presidency reverberates loudly. Another case late in Taft‘s term on the Court held future ramifications due to changing technology. This was Olmstead v. United States (1928), in which the Court ruled on the use of telephone wiretaps by the Justice Department in a Prohibition case. Taft was able to form only a narrow 5-4 majority to uphold a 45

Ibid., VIII: 143-47 (quote on p. 144). Paul L. Murphy, The Constitution in Crisis Times, 1918-1969 (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), pp. 58-60. 47 Burton, Taft, Holmes, and the 1920s Court, p. 141. 48 A summary version of the opinion is in Collected Works, VIII: 257-68. 46

After the Presidency

177

lower court‘s ruling that evidence obtained in such a manner was admissible. While the Fourth Amendment had earlier been found to protect letters in the mail, Taft reasoned that it did not apply to ―telephone wires reaching to the whole world from the defendant‘s house or office.‖ His much-quoted observation was that such wires ―are not part of his house or office any more than are the highways along which they are stretched.‖49 Though the opinion was reached by the narrowest possible majority, it held until 1967, when it was reversed by the Warren Court in Katz v. United States. Other major opinions of the Taft Court did not fare so well. The Court was reflective of the times – the 1920s and the ―age of normalcy‖ as proposed by President Harding and carried on by his successor, Calvin Coolidge. But with the coming of the Great Depression and the New Deal of the 1930s, conceptions about private property and government regulation changed dramatically. As early as 1930, Harvard Professor Felix Frankfurter decried the judicial activism of the Court which led to the invalidation of scores of legislative actions. ―Views that were antiquated twenty-five years ago have been resurrected,‖ he wrote of what he saw as a reactionary Court. Most importantly, as he pointed out, ―the discouragement of legislative effort through a particular adverse decision and the general weakening of the sense of legislative responsibility are destructive influences.‖50 Thirty years later, a similar assessment of Taft‘s decisions found the ―irony of Taft‘s judicial career: no man tried so diligently to settle questions and problems for the future, but yet accomplished so little that has been enduring and useful.‖51 A recent historical evaluation of the Court finds its legacy to be ―mixed.‖ Peter Renstrom opines that ―The Taft Court was not reactionary, but it was not particularly insightful either.‖ Although the Court could hardly be held responsible for the Great Depression, many of its opinions invalidated actions that could have helped avoid it. Furthermore, the pro-business attitude of the Court lasted after Taft in the form of the so-called ―Four Horsemen‖ – McReynolds, Sutherland, Van Devanter, and Butler – who would strongly oppose many of the regulatory efforts of the New Deal. However, as Renstrom notes, the Taft Court did not strike down all of the regulatory activities it encountered. In addition, the Court ―blurred the public-private distinction found at the center of classical legal thought, and its interstate commerce 49

Ibid., p. 335. Mason, ―William Howard Taft,‖ p. 2119. 51 Stanley I. Kutler, ―Chief Justice Taft and the Delusion of Judicial Exactness—A Study in Jurisprudence,‖ Virginia Law Review 48 (December 1962): 1425. 50

178

Richard G. Frederick

decisions seemed to suggest that most aspects of such commerce were within federal regulatory reach.‖52 Taft‘s reputation as a ―very good‖ Chief Justice rests, not on his judicial philosophy, but on his ability as an administrator of the Court and his lobbying activities on behalf of the Court. The latter included securing a Congressional agreement in 1925 to erect a Supreme Court building, which was finished two years after his death.53 Taft was always the workhorse of his own Court. When he was appointed, he told a friend that ―The task I undertake is one of incessant labor and of critical responsibility.‖54 He worked as diligently as he had at any time in his life. (It was, after all, a labor of love.) After rising early each morning, he worked in his study for several hours before walking to the court, where the average day lasted four hours. After dinner, he would again work on cases under consideration. He assigned himself the writing of more opinions than other Justices. In the 1922 term, he wrote an amazing 20.4%.55 (If the writing among the others was equally split, each of the eight Associate Justices would have been responsible for 10%--half of Taft‘s output.) The months when the Court was not in session was another matter, of course. Summers at Murray Bay continued through the 1920s. Daughter Helen was married there in 1920, and other family gatherings regularly took place, notably Taft‘s 70th birthday celebration in 1927, which brought out over 100 relatives and friends. He joked about the practice of Aunt Delia, which he claimed to follow. ―She lived to be ninety-two, and she gave a dinner on her seventieth birthday in order that people might not think she was eighty.‖56 He visited family in Cincinnati on occasion as well, though not as frequently as when he had regularly traveled around the country speaking for his causes. Apart from Canada, his last trip out of the country came in the summer of 1922, when he and Nellie ventured to England. He received an honorary degree from Oxford, visited the English courts, and met with all manner of important folk, including the King and Queen.57 Nellie would venture across the Atlantic again two years later, but in the company of her sister, Maria, since Taft‘s health would not allow him to make the trip. 52

Renstrom, Taft Court, p. 213. Alpheus T. Mason considers Taft‘s place in Court history in his William Howard Taft, pp. 299-305. 54 WHT to Walter L. Fisher, August 3, 1921, Fisher Papers, Box 5. 55 Renstrom, Taft Court, p. 264. 56 Pringle, Taft, II: 1075. 57 Ibid., II: 1000-1006; Ross, American Family, 331-39. Both accounts owe a great deal to Taft‘s own often-humorous account of the trip, found with WHT to Robert A. Taft, July 29, 1922. 53

After the Presidency

179

Poor health plagued Will through the 1920s. Although he managed to keep his weight down through constant attention to diet, his heart was not strong, probably owing to his earlier obesity. He had severe ―chest pains‖ in April 1923 and February 1924; the latter attack came on the day of Woodrow Wilson‘s funeral, at which he was supposed to be an honorary pallbearer. (He evidently did not miss much. Nellie went and confided to a friend that ―I thought it was a poor funeral.‖) Doctors at Johns Hopkins Hospital x-rayed his heart and concluded that he had suffered two heart attacks. Their diagnosis of an enlarged heart precluded much of his regular exercise. He would no longer walk to work, and would have to give up riding and golf.58 Taft continued his pace on the court in the late 1920s in spite of his precarious health. He limited his social activities rather than his work, dining at home and sitting with Nellie most evenings. In 1929, he traveled to Cincinnati and visited with his sons, who were practicing law there. He stayed in Charles‘s home and visited other relatives, including Nellie‘s sister Maria. He was in and out of the hospital after his return to Washington, though he did make the annual pilgrimage to Murray Bay for the summer. The big blow came at the end of the year, with the news of Charles‘s final illness. He died in the early hours of New Year‘s Day, 1930 at the age of 86 in his home on Pike Street. Although 14 years separated the brothers, Will and Charles had a very close relationship through their adult lives. Disregarding cautions about his own health, Will insisted on attending the funeral in Cincinnati.59 The trip was the last insult to his failing body. He was hospitalized on his return to Washington, then taken to Asheville, North Carolina for rest. It quickly became apparent that no amount of rest would stay the inevitable— Taft was dying. He officially resigned from the Supreme Court on February 3. He died in his home on Wyoming Avenue on March 8, 1930. After lying in state in the United States Capitol for several hours, the body was taken for a funeral service to All Souls Unitarian Church. Burial was in Arlington National Cemetery, at a hillside site selected by Nellie, from which, fittingly, both the White House and the new Supreme Court building could be seen.60

58

Anthony, Nellie Taft, p. 382. A lengthy treatment of Charles‘s life is found in the Cincinnati Enquirer on January 1, 1930. 60 Anthony, Nellie Taft, pp. 389-90. 59

`

BIBLIOGRAPHY A. MANUSCRIPTS Aldrich, Nelson Papers. MSS Division, Library of Congress. Anderson, Chandler P. Papers. MSS Division, Library of Congress. Carnegie, Andrew Papers. MSS Division, Library of Congress. Cortelyou, George B. Papers. MSS Division, Library of Congress Fisher, Walter Lowrie Papers. MSS Division, Library of Congress. Garfield, James A. Papers. MSS Division, Library of Congress. Knox, Philander C. Papers. MSS Division, Library of Congress MacVeagh, Franklin Papers. MSS Division, Library of Congress. Pinchot, Amos Papers. MSS Division, Library of Congress. Pinchot, Gifford. Papers. MSS Division, Library of Congress. Root, Elihu Papers. MSS Division, Library of Congress. Straus, Oscar S. Papers. MSS Division, Library of Congress

182

Richard G. Frederick

Taft, William Howard Papers. MSS Division, Library of Congress. White, William Allen. Papers. MSS Division, Library of Congress.

B. PUBLISHED PRIMARY SOURCES Abbott, Lawrence F. Impressions of Theodore Roosevelt. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1920. Barker, Charles E. With President Taft in the White House: Memories of William Howard Taft. Chicago: A. Kroch and Son, 1947. Burton, David H., et al., eds. The Collected Works of William Howard Vols.; Athens: Ohio University Press, 2001-04. Busby, L. White. Uncle Joe Cannon: The Story of a Pioneer American. York: Henry Holt and Company, 1927.

Taft.

8

New

Butt, Archibald W. Taft and Roosevelt: The Intimate Letters of Archie Butt, Military Aide. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Doran & Company, 1930. Davis, Oscar King. Released for Publication: Some Inside Political History of Theodore Roosevelt and His Times, 1898-1918. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1925. Depew, Chauncey M. My Memories of Eighty Years. New York: Charles Scribner‘s Sons, 1924. Dunn, Arthur W. From Harrison to Harding: A Personal Narrative, Covering a Third of a Century, 1888-1921. 2 Vols.; New York: G.P. Putnam‘s Sons, 1922. ________. Gridiron Nights: Humorous and Satirical Views of Politics and Statesmen as Presented by the Famous Dining Club. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1915.

Bibliography

183

Foraker, Joseph Benson. Notes of a Busy Life. 2 Vols.; Cincinnati: Stewart & Kidd, 1916. Foraker, Julia B. I Would Live It Again: Memories of a Vivid Life. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1932. Hammond, John Hays. The Autobiography of John Hays Hammond. 2 Vols.; New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1935. Hoover, Irwin Hood (Ike). Forty-Two Years in the White House. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1934. Huntington-Wilson, Francis M. Memoirs of an Ex-Diplomat. Boston: Little, Brown, 1945. Johnson, Donald Bruce, comp. National Party Platforms. Rev. ed.; 2 Vols.; Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1978. Johnson, Walter, ed. Selected Letters of William Allen White, 1899-1943. New York: Greenwood Press, 1968. Lodge, Henry Cabot, ed. Selections from the Correspondence of Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, 1884-1918. 2 Vols.; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1925. Longworth, Alice Roosevelt. Crowded Hours: Reminiscences. Charles Scribner's Sons, 1933.

New York:

Moses, Edith. Unofficial Letters of an Official’s Wife. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1908. Stoddard, Henry L. As I Knew Them: Presidents and Politics from Grant to Coolidge. New York and London: Harper & Brothers, 1927. ______. It Costs to Be President. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1938. Sullivan, Mark. The Education of an American. New York: Doubleday, Doran & Co., Inc., 1938.

184

Richard G. Frederick

Taft, Horace Dutton. Memories and Opinions. New York: Macmillan Company, 1942. Taft, Mrs. William Howard. Recollections of Full Years. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1914. Villard, Oswald Garrison. Fighting Years: Memoirs of a Liberal Editor. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1939. Watson, James E. As I Knew Them: Memoirs of James E. Watson, Former United States Senator from Indiana. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1936. Williams, Daniel R. The Odyssey of the Philippine Commission. Chicago: A.C. McClurg & Co., 1913.

C. BOOKS Anderson, Donald E. William Howard Taft: A Conservative's Conception of the Presidency. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1968. Anderson, Judith Icke. William Howard Taft: An Intimate History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1981. Arnold, Peri. Making the Managerial Presidency: Comprehensive Reorganization Planning, 1905-1980. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986. Bartlett, Ruhl J. The League to Enforce Peace. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1944. Bolles, Blair. Tyrant from Illinois: Uncle Joe Cannon's Experiment with Personal Power. NewYork: W.W. Norton & Company, 1951. Brands, H. W. TR: The Last Romantic. New York: BasicBooks, 1997. Broderick, Francis L. Progressivism at Risk: Electing a President in 1912. New York: Greenwood Press, 1989.

Bibliography

185

Bromley, Michael L. William Howard Taft and the First Motoring Presidency, 1909-1913. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company,Inc., 2003. Brough, James. Princess Alice: A Biography of Alice Roosevelt Longworth. Boston: Little, Brown, 1975. Burton, David H. The Learned Presidency: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson.Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1988. ________. Taft, Holmes, and the 1920s Court: An Appraisal. Madison, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1998. ________. Taft, Roosevelt, and the Limits of Friendship. Madison, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005. ________. Taft, Wilson, and World Order. Madison, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2003. Campbell, Shepherd and Peter Landau. Presidential Lies: The Illustrated History of White House Golf. New York: Macmillan, 1996. Chace, James. 1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft & Debs–The Election That Changed the Country. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004. Coletta, Paolo E. The Presidency of William Howard Taft. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1973. ________. William Jennings Bryan I. Political Evangelist. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1964. Conner, Valerie Jean. The National War Labor Board: Stability, Social Justice, and the Voluntary State in World War I. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983. Cooper, John Milton, Jr. Pivotal Decades: The United States, 1900-1920. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1990.

186

Richard G. Frederick

Curl, Donald W. Murat Halstead and the Cincinnati Commercial. Boca Raton: University Presses of Florida, 1980. Davis, Oscar King. William Howard Taft: The Man of the Hour. St Louis: Thompson Publishing Company, 1908. Duffy, Herbert S. William Howard Taft. New York: Minton, Balch & Company, 1930. Faber, Doris. The Mothers of American Presidents. New York: New American Library, 1968. Friedman, Leon and Fred L. Israel, eds. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court, 1789-1969: Their Lives and Major Opinions. 5 Vols.; New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1969. Gable, John Allen. The Bull Moose Years: Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Party. Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1978. Gardner, Joseph L. Departing Glory: Theodore Roosevelt as Ex-President. New York: Charles Scribner‘s Sons, 1973. Gould, Lewis L. Four Hats in the Ring: The 1912 Election and the Birth of Modern American Politics. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2008. ________. The Modern American Presidency. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2003. ________. Reform and Regulation: American Politics from Roosevelt to Wilson. 2d ed.; New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986. Haber, Samuel. Efficiency and Uplift: Scientific Management in the Progressive Era, 1890-1920. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Hatch, Carl E. The Big Stick and the Congressional Gavel: A Study of Theodore Roosevelt’s Relations with His Last Congress, 1907-1909. New York: Pageant Press, 1967.

Bibliography

187

Healy, David. Drive to Hegemony: The United States in the Caribbean, 18981917. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988. Hechler, Kenneth W. Insurgency: Personalities and Politics of the Taft Era. New York: Columbia University Press, 1940. Hicks, Frederick C. William Howard Taft: Yale Professor of Law & New Haven Citizen. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1945. Holt, James. Congressional Insurgents and the Party System 1909-1916. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967. Hunt, Michael H. The Making of a Special Relationship: The United States and China to 1914. New York: Columbia University Press, 1983. Juergens, George. News from the White House: The Presidential-Press Relationship in the Progressive Era. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. Karnow, Stanley. In Our Image: America’s Empire in the Philippines. New York: Ballantine Books, 1989. Kolko, Gabriel. Railroads and Regulation, 1877-1916. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1970. Leonard, Lewis Alexander. Life of Alphonso Taft. New York: Hawke Publishing, 1920. Leonard, Thomas M. Central America and the United States: The Search for Stability. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991. Lewis, William Draper. The Life of Theodore Roosevelt. Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1919. Link, Arthur S. Wilson: The Road to the White House. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1947. ________. Wilson: Campaigns for Progressivism and Peace, 1916-1917. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1965.

188

Richard G. Frederick

Linn, Brian McAllister. The Philippine War, 1899-1902. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000. Manners, William. TR and Will: A Friendship That Split the Republican Party. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1969. Mason, Alpheus Thomas. Bureaucracy Convicts Itself: The Ballinger-Pinchot Controversy of 1910. New York: Viking Press, 1941. ________. William Howard Taft: Chief Justice. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1964. McCullough, David. The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870-1914. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1977. Merrill, Horace Samuel and Marion Galbraith Merrill. The Republican Command, 1897-1913. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1971. Miller, Stuart Creighton. "Benevolent Assimilation": The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982. Miller, Zane L. Boss Cox's Cincinnati: Urban Politics in the Progressive Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968. Minger, Ralph Eldin. William Howard Taft and United States Foreign Policy: The Apprenticeship Years 1900-1908. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975. Moore, J. Hampton. Roosevelt and the Old Guard. Philadelphia: Macrae Smith, 1925. Morris, Edmund. Theodore Rex. New York: Random House, 2001. Mowry, George E. Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement. New York: Hill and Wang, 1960. Murphy, Paul L. The Constitution in Crisis Times, 1918-1969. New York: Harper & Row, 1972.

Bibliography

189

Murray, Robert K. and Tim H. Blessing. Greatness in the White House: Rating the Presidents. 2d.ed.; University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994. National Party Conventions, 1831-2004. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2005. Neu, Charles E. An Uncertain Friendship: Theodore Roosevelt and Japan, 19061909. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967. Penick, James, Jr. Progressive Politics and Conservation: The Ballinger-Pinchot Affair. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968. Pratt, Julius W. America and World Leadership, 1900-1921. London: Collier Books, 1970. Pringle, Henry F. The Life and Times of William Howard Taft. 2 Vols.; Norwalk, Conn.: Easton Press, 1986. Renstrom, Peter G. The Taft Court: Justices, Rulings, and Legacy. Barbara, Cal.: ABC-CLIO, 2003.

Santa

Ross, Ishbel. An American Family: The Tafts--1678 to 1964. Cleveland: World Publishing Company, 1964. Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr. et al., eds. History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-1968. 4 Vols.; New York: Chelsea House, 1971. Stephenson, Nathaniel Wright. Nelson W. Aldrich: A Leader in American Politics. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1930. Strouse, Jean. Morgan: American Financier. New York: Random House, 1999. Unger, Nancy C. Fighting Bob LaFollette: The Righteous Reformer. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000. Wilensky, Norman M. Conservatives in the Progressive Era: The Taft Republicans of 1912. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1965.

190

Richard G. Frederick

D. ARTICLES Abel, Christopher A. ―Controlling the Big Stick: Theodore Roosevelt and the Cuban Crisis of 1906.‖ Naval War College Review 40 (Summer 1987): 8898. Baker, John D. "The Character of the Congressional Revolution of 1910." Journal of American History 60 (December 1973): 679-91. Berthoff, Rowland T. ―Taft and MacArthur, 1900-1901: A Study in CivilMilitary Relations.‖ World Politics 5 (January 1953): 196-213. Collin, Richard H. ―Symbiosis Versus Hegemony: New Directions in the Foreign Relations Historiography of Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft.‖ Diplomatic History 19 (Summer 1995): 473-97. Crowe, Justin. ―The Forging of Judicial Autonomy: Political Entrepreneurship and the Reforms of William Howard Taft.‖ Journal of Politics 69 (February 2007): 73-87. Farrell, John T. ―Background of the Taft Mission to Rome. I & II.‖ Catholic Historical Review 36 (April 1950): 1-32; 37 (April 1951): 1-22. German, James C., Jr. ―The Taft Administration and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.‖ Mid-America 54 (July 1972): 172-86. ________. ―Taft, Roosevelt, and United States Steel.‖ The Historian 34 (August 1972): 598-613. Gould, Lewis L. ―Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Disputed Delegates in 1912: Texas as a Test Case.‖ Southwestern History Quarterly 80 (1976): 33-56. Kutler, Stanley I. ―Chief Justice Taft and the Delusion of Judicial Exactness—A Study in Jurisprudence.‖ Virginia Law Review 48 (December 1962): 140726.

Bibliography

191

Mackoy, Harry Brent. "Mr. Taft's Early Life in Cincinnati." Independent 70 (February 2, 1911); 227-29. Minger, Ralph Eldin. ―William H. Taft and the United States Intervention in Cuba in 1906.‖ Hispanic American Historical Review 41 (February 1961): 75-89. Ness, Gary C. ―Proving Ground for a President: William Howard Taft and the Philippines 1900-1905.‖ Cincinnati Historical Society Bulletin 34 (no. 3, 1976): 205-23. ________. ―William Howard Taft and the Great War.‖ Cincinnati Historical Society Bulletin 34 (No. 1, 1976): 6-23. Ponder, Stephen. "`Nonpublicity' and the Unmaking of a President: William Howard Taft and the Ballinger-Pinchot Controversy of 1909-1910." Journalism History 19 (Winter 1994): 111-20. Roebuck, James Randolph, Jr. "The United States and East Asia 1909-1913: A Study of the Far Eastern Diplomacy of William Howard Taft." Valley Forge Journal 6 (December 1993): 151-326. Solvick, Stanley D. "The Conservative as Progressive: William Howard Taft and the Politics of the Square Deal." Northwest Ohio Quarterly 39 (Summer 1967): 38-48. ________. "The Pre-Presidential Political and Economic Thought of William Howard Taft." Northwest Ohio Quarterly 43 (Fall 1971): 87-97. ________. "William Howard Taft and Cannonism." Wisconsin Magazine of History 48 (Autumn 1964): 48-58. ________. "William Howard Taft and the Payne-Aldrich Tariff." Mississippi Valley Historical Review 50 (December 1963): 424-42. Taft, William Howard. ―The Democratic Record.‖ Yale Review 6 (October 1916): 1-25. Tucker, Louis Leonard. "Cincinnati: Athens of the West, 1830-1861." Ohio History 75 (Winter 1966): 10-25.

INDEX 1 14th Amendment, 147

A ABC, 145, 160 Abraham Lincoln, xi academic success, 5 achievement, 69, 144 acquisitions, 107 activism, 148, 150 Adams, x, xi, 2 Adams, John, xi Adams, John Quincy, x, 2 adenoids, 87 adjustment, 3, 55, 56, 126 administration, xi, xiii, 7, 18, 28, 31, 34, 54, 55, 62, 64, 65, 72, 78, 83, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 110, 111, 114, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 131, 133, 138, 141, 145 administrative, 53, 97, 99, 146, 149 adult, xvii, 8, 27, 48, 118, 152 advertisement, 136 advertising, xvii, 87, 127 Advice and Consent, x Africa, 86, 95 African-American, 61, 86, 87 age, xii, 4, 5, 7, 12, 24, 92, 150, 151 agent, 91, 135

air, 52, 59, 78, 124, 128 Alabama, 11, 125 Alaska, 26, 91, 93 alternative, 64, 125 ambassadors, x amendments, 43, 73, 86, 89, 98 American colonies, 1 American History, 160 American Presidency, 157 antagonistic, 147 anti-American, 109 antitrust, xix, 31, 70, 83, 84, 99, 100, 101, 102, 125, 126 application, 27, 96, 135, 148, 149 appointments, 21, 24, 27, 48, 69, 121, 145 arbitration, 76, 110, 111, 115, 140, 144 argument, 23, 27, 135, 136, 139, 148, 149 Arizona, 99, 136 Arkansas, xii Army, ix, 45, 46, 51, 55, 61, 62 Arthur, Chester, xi Articles of Confederation, x Asia, 74, 102, 107 assassination, xii, 129 assessment, 11, 13, 61, 150 Associate Justices, 146, 151 Athens, 2, 80, 108, 154, 158, 162 Atlantic, 151 atmosphere, 70, 122 attacks, 120, 128 attitudes, 45, 70, 135

194

Index

Attorney General, 7, 24, 26, 82, 83, 96, 98, 100 Austria, 8 authority, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 48, 55, 66, 92, 99, 123, 136, 149 autonomy, 35, 36, 97, 146 awareness, xix, 100

B bankers, 106, 107, 108, 109, 114 banking, 86, 108, 123 banks, 3, 28, 38, 99 Barack Obama, xi behavior, 19, 23, 53, 81 beliefs, 93, 103, 118, 131, 147 benefits, 24, 103, 104, 105, 110 birth, 1, 3, 5, 23 bomb, xxi bonds, 3, 20 Boston, 4, 58, 70, 86, 93, 104, 118, 119, 138, 145, 154, 156 bounds, 100, 148 breakdown, 7, 117 bribery, 18 Bribery, x Britain, 26, 59, 105, 110 brothers, 5, 13, 27, 31, 40, 41, 69, 152 Brussels, 11 buildings, 39, 78, 85 Bureau of the Budget, xiii, 97 Bush, George Herbert Walker, xii Bush, George W., xi

C Cabinet, ix, xii, 33, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 64, 65, 72, 74, 77, 79, 89, 91, 97, 101 cabinet members, 28, 83 campaign finance, 76 campaigns, 71, 79, 94, 119, 140 Canada, 31, 102, 103, 127, 151 Canal Zone, 55, 56 candidates, x, 60, 71, 72, 94, 95, 115, 123, 124, 126, 128, 130 capitalism, 6, 100

Caribbean, 57, 59, 86, 102, 105, 107, 109, 157 caricatures, xix Carter, Jimmy, xii cast, 10, 30, 77, 82, 85, 87 Catholic, 38, 39, 40, 47, 48, 160 Catholic Church, 38, 39, 48 caucuses, x Central America, 102, 107, 108, 109, 158 central bank, 114 character, ix, xi, xiv, 8, 13, 14, 21, 30, 64, 88, 143 checks and balances, x Chief Justice, vii, xvii, xix, 35, 44, 65, 69, 85, 144, 145, 146, 148, 150, 159, 161 Chief of Staff, 61 children, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 29, 35, 39, 47, 113, 144 China, 34, 46, 105, 106, 158 Christmas, 17, 46, 83 Cincinnati, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 42, 43, 44, 46, 51, 53, 60, 62, 68, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 132, 151, 152, 154, 157, 159, 161, 162 citizens, xiv, 7, 61, 64, 104, 109 civil law, 38 civil service, vii, 35, 36, 38 civil service reform, vii, 36 civil war, 29 Civil War, 2, 3, 7, 19, 35, 45, 78, 125, 129, 145 civilian, 37, 45 classes, 8, 39, 42, 67, 134, 137 classroom, 5, 6, 137 Cleveland, Frances, 133 Cleveland, Grover, xi, 133 Clinton, William Jefferson (, xi Co, x, 1, 9, 22, 23, 29, 39, 86, 98, 117, 130, 134, 137, 147, 149, 155, 158 coal, 89, 90, 91, 93 coastal areas, 42, 63 codes, 18, 45, 51, 146 Cold War, xiii collective bargaining, 141

Index Colombia, 35, 55 Colorado, 77, 80, 81, 82 Columbia, xii, 8, 56, 106, 158 Columbia University, xii, 158 commander in chief, xii commerce, 31, 76, 98, 104, 108, 149, 150 Committee for Congested Production Areas, xiii common law, 135 communication, 48, 66 community, 2, 4, 7, 18, 19, 37, 134 compensation, 30 competence, xix, 69 competition, 73, 100, 127, 139 Conference Committee, 89, 90 confession, 17 confidence, 10, 64, 149 Congress, iv, ix, x, xiii, xxi, 1, 9, 27, 36, 46, 52, 59, 60, 64, 67, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 79, 80, 86, 88, 89, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 105, 110, 111, 129, 131, 143, 145, 153, 157 Connecticut, 2, 21, 53, 96 consent, 59, 143 conservation, 64, 85, 90, 91, 92, 93, 102, 123, 128 consolidation, 99 conspiracy, 30 Constitution, ix, xii, 123, 125, 134, 135, 136, 146, 147, 149, 159 constitutional law, x constitutional principles, ix, 120 construction, 28, 105, 106, 139 contracts, 21, 141, 148 control, x, xii, 1, 22, 30, 33, 34, 37, 51, 59, 61, 64, 88, 94, 96, 97, 100, 107, 110, 117, 118, 119, 121, 123, 129, 135, 136, 139 convention, xi, 3, 7, 22, 54, 75, 76, 77, 115, 116, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 141, 143 convention delegate, 76, 120, 121 conviction, 39, 72, 100, 147 Coolidge, Calvin, xi, 150

195

corporations, 30, 70, 71, 73, 78, 83, 98, 99, 100, 139 Council for Urban Affairs, xiii Council of Economic Advisers, xiii Council on Economic Policy, xiv Council on Environmental Quality, xiii Council on International Economic Policy, xiv Council on Wage and Price Stability, xiv counsel, ix, 3, 18, 20, 24, 54, 68, 70, 109 Court of Appeals, 145 courts, xvii, 8, 9, 22, 27, 30, 38, 45, 74, 86, 102, 110, 118, 123, 125, 128, 136, 139, 146, 151 covering, 13, 38 credit, 20, 79, 98 crime, 17, 18, 19, 66 criminal activity, 73 criticism, 22, 26, 74, 91, 94, 105, 126, 132, 135, 138, 139, 143 Cuba, 59, 62, 63, 64, 67, 76, 102, 161 Cuban government, 63 currency, 38, 49, 106, 123

D danger, 5, 40, 128, 134, 143 Darwinism, 6 death, 1, 7, 27, 68, 108, 114, 118, 129, 144, 150 debt, 23 debts, 23, 108 decisions, xix, 8, 24, 25, 27, 30, 57, 81, 95, 117, 121, 122, 125, 126, 136, 140, 142, 145, 146, 150 defense, 9, 17, 19, 30, 131 delegates, xi, 75, 76, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123 delivery, 29, 72 democracy, x, 135, 142 Democrat, 77, 129, 145 Democratic Party, 81 Democrats, 54, 72, 77, 80, 96, 98, 103, 114, 115, 124, 125, 126, 129, 139, 142, 144 demoralization, 92 dengue, 46

196

Index

denial, 70, 71, 75 Department of Agriculture, 83, 91 Department of Justice, 25 Department of State, 103 deprivation, 60 dictatorship, 109 diet, 60, 61, 137, 151 dignity, 14, 27, 127 diplomacy, xi, 75, 104, 105, 107, 109, 110, 113, 141 Director for Mutual Security, xiii disappointment, 20, 48, 71, 92, 119 discipline, 92, 129 disputes, 38, 55, 80, 86, 98, 140, 148 dissatisfaction, 84, 123, 135 dissenting opinion, 145, 148 District of Columbia, 148 division, 54, 125 domestic agenda, vii Domestic Council, xiv domestic policy, 141 Domestic Policy Staff, xiv Dominican Republic, 108 draft, 38, 49, 83, 143 duties, ix, xvii, 9, 21, 26, 27, 44, 46, 53, 58, 75, 133

emergency management, xiii emotional, xviii, 59 employees, 73, 142 employers, 29, 81, 141, 142 employment, 8, 30, 81 encouragement, xxi Energy Policy Office, xiv Energy Resource Council, xiv engagement, 3, 13, 18 England, 1, 2, 11, 14, 67, 151 enterprise, 56, 106, 118 enthusiasm, 18, 25, 48, 109, 115 epidemic, 29, 49, 57 Europe, 11, 14, 23, 25, 47, 67, 68, 93, 95, 102, 104, 114, 140 Europeans, 105 evening, 6, 18, 36, 40, 44, 52, 66, 74, 80, 85, 113, 129 evil, 72, 73, 118, 128 execution, ix, 96 Executive Office of the President, xiii, xv Executive Order, xiv exercise, 23, 39, 42, 44, 61, 80, 99, 128, 137, 149, 151 expanded trade, 103 expenditures, 42, 96, 123, 127

E

F

earth, 55, 130 East Asia, 59, 106, 107, 161 economic cooperation, 104 economic development, 35, 42 economic stability, 108 Education, 4, 8, 155 educational system, 49 Eisenhower, Dwight D., xi Eisenhower, Dwight David, xii election, x, xi, 7, 10, 19, 22, 24, 30, 60, 63, 64, 65, 70, 71, 76, 77, 82, 83, 85, 94, 95, 111, 115, 116, 117, 119, 121, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 134, 136, 141, 144 election law, 116 Electoral College, ix, x Electors, x elementary school, 5, 12

failure, 7, 33, 48, 118, 142 family, xix, xxi, 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42, 44, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 60, 61, 62, 65, 68, 69, 70, 78, 82, 85, 89, 113, 125, 127, 132, 133, 135, 137, 151 family members, 13, 35, 37, 42, 46, 52, 54, 60, 61, 69, 85, 90, 125, 132, 133, 135 fanaticism, 92 Far East, 34, 55, 57, 59, 72, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 161 farm land, 39 fat, xviii, xix, 1, 5, 81 favorite son, 82 February, 4, 9, 10, 11, 20, 25, 30, 33, 34, 36, 40, 43, 51, 52, 63, 78, 79, 92, 93, 100,

Index 101, 103, 107, 109, 110, 114, 115, 117, 119, 134, 143, 146, 151, 152, 160, 161 federal courts, 98 Federal District Court, 26, 29 federal government, 29, 30, 73, 77, 96, 99, 126, 130, 136, 149 federal judiciary, 145, 146 federal law, 149 Federal Property Council, xiv Federal Trade Commission, 139 Federal Trade Commission Act, 139 feelings, 13, 45, 63, 130, 132 fees, 20, 138 Filipino, 34, 35, 37, 40, 43, 53, 58, 59 Fillmore, Millard, xi financial stability, 56 financial support, xxi, 60 first principles, 137 fishing, 80 fitness, xvii flavor, 40, 109 food, xxi, 14, 43, 148 Ford, xi Ford, Gerald R., xi foreign affairs, 54, 61, 104, 126, 139 foreign policy, 86, 102, 103, 104, 110, 139 Foreign Relations Committee, 110 foreigners, 42 Forest Service, 83 Forestry, 91, 93 Founding Fathers, x Fourteenth Amendment, 148 Fourth Amendment, 149 France, 14, 67, 105, 106, 110 Franklin D. Roosevelt, xi, xiii fraud, 19, 63 free trade, 56, 103 friction, 28, 35, 37 friendship, xxi, 13, 53, 57, 101, 109, 114, 118 funding, xxi, 8, 67 fundraising, 128 funds, 9, 30, 94

197

G gangrene, 46 Garfield, James, xii, 90 genealogy, 1 general election, 115 General Electric, 100 generation, 1, 120 Georgia, xii, 82, 108, 133, 143, 158 Germany, 11, 34, 59, 67, 105, 106, 110 gloves, 36, 120 good faith, 88, 89 governors, 96, 117 grades, 6, 113 Grant ,Ulysses S., xi, 7 Great Britain, 26, 58, 106 Great Depression, 150 Great War, 140, 161 greed, xix, 99, 100, 101 groups, 2, 59, 63, 79, 81, 84, 92, 121, 127, 131, 142, 148 growth, xii guilty, 29, 118

H handling, 57, 64, 88, 91, 98 hands, 12, 24, 29, 34, 39, 48, 57, 58, 61, 83, 92 happiness, 14, 135 harm, 8, 58, 141 Harrison, Benjamin, xii, 24 Harrison, William Henry, xii Harvard, 66, 94, 113, 147, 150, 158, 159 Hawaii, xv, 36, 128 Hayes, Rutherford B., xii, 12 health, 4, 5, 20, 26, 27, 42, 52, 61, 68, 113, 124, 151 health insurance, 124 hearing, 83, 109 heart, 4, 33, 60, 61, 151 heart attack, 151 Hispanic, 63, 161 holding company, 99 Homeland Security, xiv

198

Index

Honduras, 108 honesty, 2, 60 Hong Kong, 37, 102 horizon, 11, 140, 143 horse, 42, 61, 87 hospital, 87, 151 hospitalized, 152 host, xvii, 71 hostility, 30, 110 House, x, xiii, 19, 52, 55, 60, 71, 75, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 103, 107, 113, 125, 133, 145, 157, 159, 160 household, 4, 87 human rights, 124 humorous, 40, 47, 151 Hungary, 8 husband, 4, 23, 25, 28, 43, 55, 78, 85, 86, 87 hypocrisy, 92, 119

I Idaho, 71, 94, 143 Illinois, xi, 71, 77, 88, 94, 119, 121, 125, 155, 156, 159 immersion, 49, 93 immigrants, 66 immigration, 66, 86 imperialism, 104 inauguration, 38, 44, 84, 85, 89, 133 inclusion, 58 income, 20, 73, 132, 141, 146 income tax, 73, 141, 146 independence, 12, 40, 55, 56, 59, 66, 118, 120, 125 Indiana, xii, 54, 71, 77, 79, 94, 95, 121, 122, 125, 155 indication, 76, 94, 135 individualism, 73 industrial, 84, 96, 148 industrial relations, 148 inheritance tax, 73 inherited, xix, 98, 114 injunction, 29, 70, 80, 148 injustice, 62, 118, 129 insane, 29, 66 instability, 108, 109

institutions, 2, 109, 134 instruction, 4, 5, 137 instruments, 120, 131 integrity, ix, 2, 105, 106, 123 intellect, xviii, 13 intelligence, 5, 149 interstate, 30, 98, 150 interstate commerce, 30, 98, 150 Interstate Commerce Commission, vii, 73, 83, 98 intervention, 64, 104, 107, 108, 109 investment, 104, 105, 109 iron, 7, 30, 90 Israel, 145, 146, 157

J Jackson, Andrew, xi James Watson, 122 Japan, 34, 36, 37, 46, 53, 57, 58, 59, 65, 66, 67, 102, 105, 106, 113, 159 Japanese, 36, 52, 58, 59, 66, 105, 106, 107, 113, 114 Jefferson, x, xi, 87, 156 Jefferson, Thomas, xi jobs, xix, 21 Johnson, Andrew, xi Johnson, Lyndon Baines, xi journalists, 81, 84 judge, x, xvii, 3, 21, 22, 27, 54, 80, 81, 145 judges, 8, 21, 25, 69, 118, 136, 137, 145, 146 judgment, xix, 23, 67, 94, 149 judicial branch, 146 Judicial Conference, 146 judiciary, xvii, 12, 24, 95, 117, 118, 120, 123, 125, 126, 139, 140 Judiciary, 145, 146 Judiciary Committee, 145 jurisdiction, 28, 45, 62 jury, 10, 17, 18 justice, 18, 21, 71, 104, 135, 146 Justice Department, 30, 98, 100, 149

Index

K Kennedy, John F., xii Kentucky, 27, 28, 159 killing, 26, 53, 61 King, 8, 70, 74, 118, 151, 154, 157 Korea, 58, 59, 105 Korean, 59

L labeling, 54, 93 labor, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 69, 70, 74, 76, 79, 80, 81, 86, 120, 141, 142, 147, 148, 150 labor relations, 141 land, 34, 39, 47, 51, 90, 91, 102, 123, 124 language, xvii, 139, 143 large-scale, 38, 47, 97, 135 Latin America, 57, 104, 105, 107, 110 law, x, xvii, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 30, 31, 42, 60, 64, 80, 83, 98, 99, 100, 101, 118, 120, 123, 132, 134, 137, 139, 146, 148, 151 laws, ix, 38, 42, 53, 73, 86, 98, 120, 134 lawyers, 8, 9, 10, 18, 21, 83, 137 leadership, ix, xiv, xix, 34, 88, 94, 96, 97, 102, 106, 120, 123, 147 League of Nations, 140, 142, 143, 144 legal issues, 8 legality, 91 legislation, xi, 42, 51, 72, 84, 86, 88, 89, 92, 95, 98, 99, 102, 103, 119, 125, 126, 131, 136, 145, 146 leisure, 11, 31 leisure time, 31 Liaison Office for Personnel Management, xiii liberal, 125, 142, 145, 147 liberty, 54, 120, 123, 147 librarians, xxi lifetime, 1, 43 limitations, 99, 113, 148 Lincoln, xii, 77, 139, 156 Lincoln, Abraham, xi Link, Arthur, 141

199

liquor, 2, 42 living arrangements, 25 loans, 106, 108 lobby, 145 lobbying, 150 local government, 43 London, 11, 106, 155, 159 long period, 99 Los Angeles, 35 Louisiana, 64 love, 13, 23, 59, 60, 110, 150 loyalty, 53, 62, 149

M machinery, 78, 96 Madison, x, xi, xxi, 53, 61, 90, 107, 146, 156, 157 Madison, James, xi Maine, 4, 89, 96 maintenance, 69, 85, 109, 147 management, 57, 97, 108, 141, 142 manslaughter, 17, 18 manufactured goods, 103 manufacturing, 104, 126 marriage, 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 23 martial law, 64 Maryland, xxi, 79 Massachusetts, xii, 4, 60, 70, 96, 119, 120, 127 materialism, 147 McKinley, William, xi, 94, 118, 121 measures, 76, 96, 99, 102, 135 medical school, 138 membership, 56, 93, 121, 144 men, xviii, 17, 19, 21, 29, 36, 39, 41, 45, 56, 60, 61, 63, 79, 80, 84, 91, 102, 122, 131, 134, 140, 142, 147 merchandise, 104 Mexican, 109, 141 Mexico, 109, 110, 114, 139 militant, 143 military, ix, xii, 35, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 52, 64, 86, 108, 109, 114, 136, 140 military aid, 86 military government, 45

200

Index

militia, 17 minimum wage, 124, 148 Minnesota, 90, 94, 138 minority, 123, 135, 144 Mississippi, 26, 89, 94, 162 Missouri, 106, 125, 143 models, xiv, xix momentum, 125 money, 1, 10, 11, 14, 20, 44, 67, 74, 76, 86, 87, 125, 127, 140 monopoly, 30, 73, 100, 123, 139 Monroe, x, xi, 107, 109, 110 Monroe, James, xi Montana, 65 morning, 6, 78, 85, 145, 150 mortgage, 23 Moscow, 67, 68 motivation, 42, 141 motives, 23, 139 movement, 48, 66, 76, 88, 94, 110, 116 MSS, 153 music, 12, 14, 23, 113

N NAM, 89 naming, xi, 75 nation, xvii, xix, 2, 21, 29, 34, 53, 57, 58, 72, 98, 105, 109, 120, 122, 132, 139 National Aeronautics and Space Council, xiii National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development, xiii National Critical Materials Council, xiv National Economic Council, xiv national emergency, xiii national interests, 104 National Party, 76, 77, 121, 123, 155, 159 National Resources Planning Board, xiii National Security Council, xiii National Security Resources Board, xiii native population, 43 Navy, ix, 33, 55, 83 Near East, 104 Nebraska, 71, 75, 77, 82, 93, 119, 156 neglect, xviii

negotiating, 56 neutralization, 106 Nevada, 82 New England, 2, 5, 54 New Jersey, xii, 14, 96, 120, 125 New Mexico, 99 New Orleans, 39, 56 New York Times, 78 newspapers, 45, 60, 74, 117, 133 Nicaragua, 108 Nixon, xi Nixon, Richard, xi normal, 20, 61, 127 North America, 39 North Carolina, 116, 140, 141, 152, 156, 160

O Oath of Affirmation, ix observations, 84, 94 obsolete, x Odyssey, 39, 42, 155 Office of Administration, xiv Office of Consumer Affairs, xiv Office of Defense Mobilization, xiii Office of Emergency Planning, xiii Office of Emergency Preparedness, xiii Office of Government Reports, xiii Office of Intergovernmental Relations, xiii Office of Management and Budget, xiv Office of National Drug Control Policy, xiv Office of Policy Development, xiv Office of Science and Technology Policy, xiv Office of Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, xiv Office of Telecommunications Policy, xiv Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, xiv Ohio, xii, xviii, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19, 24, 27, 28, 29, 46, 54, 60, 71, 74, 75, 80, 84, 85, 96, 117, 120, 123, 145, 154, 161, 162 oil, 90, 109 Operations Coordinating Board, xiii opposition, 27, 47, 76, 92, 99, 103, 115, 148

Index optimism, 25, 116, 129, 140 Oregon, xv, 116, 119, 143 Ottoman Empire, 105 ownership, 39, 65, 77, 124

P Pacific, 34, 37, 47, 58 Panama, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 65, 75, 76, 86, 102, 109, 126, 159 parents, 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 24 Paris, 11, 34, 65, 68, 142 partnership, 10, 20 party system, 135 Pennsylvania, xviii, xxi, 46, 71, 76, 82, 86, 119, 138, 159 permit, 14, 92, 96 personality, xix, 21, 70, 81 petitioners, 26 Philadelphia, 3, 7, 46, 117, 118, 140, 142, 158, 159 Philippines, v, xii, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 76, 78, 86, 102, 105, 113, 116, 158, 159, 161 philosophical, 10 philosophy, xix, 73, 135, 150 physical education, 61 Pierce, Franklin, xii plague, 36 planning, 117, 119, 134 play, 19, 51, 79, 82, 102, 113 poisoning, 46 police, 17, 61, 109 policymakers, 57 political appointments, 69 political party, xi, xii, 40 political stability, 108 politicians, 27, 46, 60, 81, 82, 84, 90, 100, 115, 121, 128 politics, xviii, 7, 8, 19, 22, 49, 51, 54, 60, 65, 70, 72, 76, 84, 86, 90, 101, 113, 117, 120, 130, 131, 132, 138, 141 Polk, James K., xii poor, 31, 54, 74, 77, 148, 151 popular support, vii, 119, 125

201

popular vote, x, 55, 119, 129 population, 135 positive reinforcement, 116 postal service, vii Potomac River, 87 power, ix, xi, xii, 26, 38, 39, 42, 45, 58, 63, 66, 88, 91, 92, 95, 98, 99, 100, 102, 105, 109, 120, 122, 125, 128, 135, 136, 149 powers, x, xii, 42, 58, 64, 95, 104, 105, 108, 123, 130, 148, 149 precedents, xviii, 146, 148, 149 prediction, 54, 92 preparatory schools, 21 presidency, vii, ix, x, xi, xii, 29, 31, 85, 88, 97, 102, 114, 130, 132, 135, 138, 144, 149 president, ix, x, xi, xii, xv, 74, 88, 95, 99, 109, 115, 140 Presidential Clemency Board, xiv prevention, 123, 140 prices, 30, 100, 139, 148 primacy, 147 primaries, xi, 95, 119, 120, 121, 136 primary elections, 120 private, 9, 10, 13, 20, 21, 26, 27, 56, 59, 74, 91, 100, 102, 105, 108, 110, 114, 128, 138, 139, 140, 147, 150 private practice, 9, 20, 21, 27 private property, 74, 147, 150 producers, 148 production, 2, 82, 89 professionalism, xxi professionalization, 103 profit, 107, 126 program, 46, 76, 77, 88, 91, 93, 94, 103, 130, 139, 140, 145 Progressive Era, xviii, 17, 94, 97, 115, 121, 127, 157, 158, 159, 160 Progressive Party, 124, 157 propaganda, 129, 143 property, iv, 1, 15, 39, 64, 118, 123, 125, 147, 149 property rights, 118 prosecutor, 9, 20 prosperity, 56, 90, 108

202

Index

protection, 39, 81, 104, 126 protectionism, 80 provocation, 18 public affairs, 138 public domain, 91 public health, 56 public interest, 95, 98, 148 public opinion, xi, 17, 63, 117 public service, ix, 133 purchasing power, 20

Q Quebec, 54

R race, 62, 65, 71, 88, 117, 118 radicalism, 80, 118, 128, 134 radicals, xviii, 100, 115 ratings, xviii rational budgeting, xix raw material, 89 reading, 23, 133 Reagan, Ronald, xi real estate, 2, 7 reality, 37, 48, 54, 81, 110, 129 rebel, 40, 63 recall, 106, 117, 126, 135, 136 reception, 37, 44, 48, 134 reciprocity, 102, 119 recognition, xvii, 109, 139 recovery, 4, 87, 113 reelection, 41, 72, 94, 116 reflection, xi, 29, 44, 116 reformers, xviii, 98, 116, 124, 130, 135, 147 reforms, xix, 35, 61, 85, 95, 98, 102, 116, 129, 136, 145, 146 regular, 9, 27, 56, 70, 94, 115, 130, 133, 151 regulation, 73, 76, 96, 99, 126, 138, 149, 150 relationship, 1, 26, 53, 56, 60, 72, 114, 135, 136, 138, 152 relatives, 5, 28, 46, 69, 78, 151 religion, 38, 70 religious belief, 31

Reorganization Act, xiii repair, 42, 46 reporters, 82, 117 Republican, vii, xvii, 7, 22, 53, 54, 60, 62, 65, 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 86, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 98, 100, 102, 103, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 140, 144, 147, 158, 159 Republican Party, 53, 76, 80, 81, 95, 158 Republicans, xviii, 60, 74, 77, 81, 82, 84, 90, 94, 96, 115, 116, 118, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 144, 160 reputation, xvii, xviii, 15, 20, 21, 31, 40, 41, 53, 118, 120, 150 resistance, 41, 97 resolution, 40, 47, 76, 92, 96, 140 resources, 92 respect, xix, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 45, 59, 73, 98, 100, 107, 109, 117, 130 retirement, 4, 132 revenue, 51, 73, 96, 103 revolt, 45, 95, 108 rhetoric, xvii, 41 Rhode Island, 89 rice, 37, 49 righteousness, 72, 118 risk, 33, 40, 128 rolling, 43, 119 Rome, 17, 47, 48, 49, 114, 160 Roosevelt, Franklin D., xi, xiii Roosevelt, Theodore, vii, xi, xviii, 6, 28, 41, 42, 47, 54, 56, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 81, 84, 88, 95, 99, 100, 101, 102, 107, 110, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 126, 131, 140, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 Rules Committee, 88, 95 Russia, 13, 26, 53, 57, 59, 65, 67, 105, 106 Russian, 148 Rutherford, xii, 6, 12, 156

S salary, 9, 20, 23, 27, 44, 51, 60, 65, 132, 138

Index Samoa, 35 satisfaction, 67, 89, 128 Saturday, 11 savings, 81, 86, 99, 102, 120 savings banks, 81, 86, 99, 102 scholarship, ix, xxi, 5 school, xvii, 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 28, 38, 137, 138, 144 sea-level, 57 Seattle, 65, 114 secret, 51, 86, 93 Secretary of Agriculture, 83, 93 Secretary of Commerce, 79, 83 Secretary of State, 55, 57, 58, 63, 82, 103, 139, 141, 143 Secretary of the Treasury, 83, 96, 97 security, 40, 126 Security Council, xiv seizure, 26 selecting, 82 self-confidence, 12, 23 self-government, 35, 58, 59, 63, 65, 67, 106 self-interest, 19 semantic, xvii Senate, x, 34, 62, 85, 89, 93, 94, 96, 99, 102, 103, 108, 110, 115, 116, 143, 144, 145 Senate approval, 108 senators, x separation, x separation of powers, x September 11, 67, 81, 82 Shanghai, 66 Sherman Act, 30, 98, 127, 139 shipping, 104 Siberia, 67 sign, 7, 62, 117 singular, 45, 95 sites, 36, 102 Sixteenth Amendment, vii skills, xviii, 130 skull fracture, 5 social acceptance, 2 social activities, 151 social control, 135

203

social events, 46, 67 social group, 53 social justice, 124, 125 social life, 11 social security, 124 social standing, 15 socialism, 73, 125 sociological, 137 sociologists, 137 South Dakota, 94, 120 sovereignty, 34, 55, 56, 59, 143 Spain, 34, 38, 39, 40 Spaniards, 44 Speaker of the House, 88, 124 Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention, xiv special interests, 90, 93, 106 species, 34 specter, 143 speculation, 13, 49, 51, 54, 128 speech, 20, 41, 43, 48, 54, 59, 60, 62, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 95, 100, 101, 117, 118, 120, 124, 125, 126, 131, 144 speed, 46 spelling, 116 spheres, 105, 106 St. Louis, 55, 74, 143 St. Petersburg, 13, 14, 20 stability, 36, 59 stabilization, 106 stages, 119 standards, 5, 55, 78 State Department, 59, 60, 70, 103, 105, 108 state legislatures, x State of the Union, x State of the Union address, x statehood, 99, 136 statistics, 116 statutes, 25, 27, 83 steel, 101 stereotypical, xix stock, 28, 73, 101 strain, 3, 44 strategies, 99

204

Index

strength, xi, xvii, 46, 63, 88, 92, 140 strikes, 29, 70, 80, 141, 147 stroke, 87 structural changes, 145 students, 133, 134, 137 subjective, 149 substitution, 104 suffering, 126 summer, 8, 9, 10, 14, 23, 29, 37, 38, 55, 57, 61, 65, 74, 75, 78, 89, 127, 137, 144, 151 superiority, 13, 45 supervision, 35, 87, 126 Supreme Court, x, xvii, xix, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 65, 69, 99, 101, 126, 136, 138, 139, 141, 145, 146, 150, 152, 157 surplus, 67, 97, 98 Switzerland, 11 sympathetic, 41, 52, 114 sympathy, 13, 22, 40, 81, 129

T tactics, 19, 20, 99 Taft, Nellie, 11, 25, 28, 43, 46, 52, 86, 87, 113, 151, 152 Taft, William Howard, ii, iii, vii, xii, xvii, xviii, xix, 1, 6, 9, 13, 22, 44, 57, 58, 61, 74, 80, 87, 89, 91, 92, 98, 105, 106, 107, 121, 134, 135, 137, 145, 146, 150, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162 talent, 43 tariff, 42, 52, 56, 73, 74, 76, 80, 84, 85, 89, 90, 95, 102, 103, 114, 123, 126, 141 tariff rates, 76 taxation, 38 teaching, xvii, 2, 10, 12, 13, 133, 134, 137, 138, 144 teaching experience, 13 Telecommunications Adviser, xiii telephone, 77, 124, 149 Tennessee, xii, 11, 27, 28, 81, 101, 145 tenure, 40, 54, 87, 107, 136, 149 territorial, 26, 105, 106, 107 territory, 106, 109 testimony, xviii, 39, 62, 123

Texas, xii, 61, 75, 121, 161 textbooks, xviii, 9, 137 Theodore Roosevelt, vii, xi, xviii, 6, 28, 41, 42, 47, 54, 56, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 81, 84, 88, 95, 99, 100, 102, 107, 110, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 126, 131, 140, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 thinking, xviii, xix, 44, 59, 86 third party, 23, 102, 108, 129 threat, xiii, 74, 94 threatened, 56, 114 timing, 65, 132 title, ix, 22, 135, 140 Tokyo, 36, 66, 114 trade, 2, 29, 30, 34, 41, 42, 86, 89, 102, 104, 123, 126 Trade Representative, xiv tradition, 70, 120 traffic, 30, 85 training, 9, 48, 104 traits, ix, 2 transactions, 105, 126 transfer, 146 transition, 34, 86 transport, 35 transportation, 68, 87, 100 travel, 3, 14, 18, 43, 60, 65, 67, 71, 79, 109, 121, 127 Treasury, 97, 131 treaties, 59, 76, 102, 108, 110, 115, 140 trees, 44, 85, 113 trial, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23 tribes, 58 Truman, Harry S., xi trust, vii, 12, 67, 70, 76, 83, 96, 100, 139 trusts, 73, 76, 77, 100 Turkey, 105 Tyler, John, xi

U U.S. military, xii, 34, 35 U.S. Steel, 100, 101, 102 uncertainty, 24, 131 undergraduates, 135

Index unemployment, 126 uniform, 146 unions, 30, 39, 69, 81, 142, 148 universities, 7, 130, 136 Utah, 129, 145

V vacation, 29, 48, 134, 144 Valley Forge, 106, 161 vVan Buren, Martin, xi Vatican, xvii, 39, 40, 47, 48 vehicles, 87 vein, 37, 41, 131 Vermont, 1, 3, 129 veto, x, 89, 99, 136 Vice President, xiv vice-presidency, xi visible, 77, 94 voice, xi, 35, 122, 123, 145 voters, 55, 60, 71, 72, 78, 82, 86, 115, 120, 128, 129, 135 voting, ix, x, xii, 60, 86, 123

W wages, 81, 141, 148 walking, 11, 151 war, 34, 45, 52, 57, 59, 66, 110, 136, 137, 140, 141, 142, 143, 148 War Refugee Board, xiii war years, 137 Washington Post, 144 Washington, George, x, xi Watson, James, 122 wealth, 19, 73, 147 Webster, Daniel, 3 welfare, 56, 106 Western Hemisphere, xvii, 107, 109

205

Whig, 3 White House, xiii, xviii, 10, 12, 25, 31, 46, 52, 53, 58, 61, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 101, 113, 121, 125, 133, 134, 152, 154, 156, 158, 159 White House Office, xiii White, William Allen, 9, 20, 22, 94, 115, 116, 117, 144, 155 WHO, xiii William Allen White, 9, 20, 22, 94, 115, 116, 117, 144, 155 Wilson, Woodrow, xi, 6, 97, 107, 110, 115, 117, 125, 133, 143, 145, 151, 156 winning, 55, 65, 115, 119, 128 wires, 85, 149 Wisconsin, 61, 71, 76, 79, 90, 94, 97, 107, 116, 119, 122, 157, 161 wisdom, ix, 54 withdrawal, 7, 40, 45, 47, 48, 91, 125 women, 39, 43, 124, 142, 148 workers, 22, 29, 30, 76, 148 World War, xiii, xviii, 97, 141, 143, 156 World War I, xiii, xviii, 97, 141, 143, 156 World War II, xiii, xviii worry, 25, 82, 109 writing, ix, 5, 25, 113, 136, 138, 139, 141, 148, 151 wrongdoing, 19, 48, 94 Wyoming, 145, 152

Y yellow fever, 57 young men, 6, 10, 11, 17, 19, 134 younger children, 53

Z Zachary Taylor, xii