Showing posts with label James Garfield. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James Garfield. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 21, 2023

FEUDING LIKE THE HALFBREEDS AND THE STALWARTS

 


I know. President's Day was yesterday (or, depending when you read this, even further back!). I debated posting it on the correct day, but I want to keep my Tuesday/Thursday/Sunday habit (unless I want to add extra blogs for a series). 

Allow me to share my favorite President story. I learned about it reading Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield by Kenneth D. Ackerman. I debated just making this a book review, but there are other items I'd like to add that I learned from other books (I'll mention them below).

The story actually started in the House of Representatives  and Garfield wasn't in the picture. It's origin was when then Congressman Roscoe Conklin (NY-R) presented a bill in 1866. Conklin was described by Zachary Karabell in his biography of Chester Alan Arthur (part of the American President series) as a six foot three peacock. He was a person few people had the courage to stand up to. 

One of the few who had that nerve was fellow Republican Congressman James Blaine from Maine. When Blaine thought Conklin was being vindictive against Provost General Fry, he countered the New Yorker, insulting him in the process. Just a passing disagreement? No, the waves carried over nearly twenty years in American politics.

Around the same time, the GOP divided into a pair of factions. One group, headed by Conklin, called themselves the Stalwarts, being stalwart supporters of President Grant. The other side, known as the Half Breeds - with Blaine as the visible face - differed on some ideological issues, primarily how to deal with the post-Civil War South and the patronage system of civil service, though Karabell said there wasn't much real ideological differences between the two factions or even with the Democrats for that matter. In his autobiography, former Speaker of the House "Uncle Joe" Cannon referred to this party division as silly. 

Where did the name "Half-Breed" come for? Karabell stated that the Stalwarts gave them that name because "they had half a mind for Presiden Grant, half a mind for reform, and a whole mind for nothing." Not very flattering. But the Half-Breeds liked that name, and took it as their moniker. 

Now, let's move ahead to 1880. Four years earlier, Rutherford B. Hayes said he would only serve one term, and kept his promise. The Stalwarts were determined to get Grant elected to an unprecedented third term, proposing a parlimentary procedure that silenced the minority of delegates in states where the majority favored Grant. Also running for President were Blaine and John Sherman. The attempt for Conklin and friend's rules change failed, and it turned into a stalemate where no candidate got the majority for 34 ballots.

Then, on the 34th ballot, 16 Wisconsin delegates voted for Garfield, who wasn't even mentioned at this point. On the 35th ballot, Garfield gained 50 votes, and on the 36th, he won the nomination.

But the party, wanting unity, told Garfield he needed a New York Stalwart as his running mate. Conklin said no way for himself or any other New York Stalwart. Well, except for one. Chester Arthur, who never held elected office and was fired from the one government position he had, felt he was serving his party by running with Garfield, even though it angered his friend Conklin.

There were interesting things about the campaign. They had a special meeting in New York to get Conklin's support, with four future presidents sharing a train ride en route (Garfield, Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, and William McKinley). By the way, Conklin was a no show. But a group that showed up to listen to Garfield was a group of Germans, making it the first time there was a foreign language used in a presidential campaign.

Garfield won the election in the narrowest margin, though afterwards Arthur hinted not everything was above board. (Yes, voter fraud is a reality, nothing new, and with neither party having the monopoly). 

One thing the party wanted and that Garfield was not opposed to was to have both Blaine and Conklin on the cabinet. After getting chosen as Secretary of State, Blaine talked Garfield out of having Conklin join them. After the inauguration, Blaine also encouraged Garfield to fire a corrupt customs official, which the President did. By the way, guess what state this fired official was, and who had that fired official's back?

Yes, there was a tough fight in the party over that fired New York official and opposition with the non-Stalwart New Yorker chosen to take his place. Even former President Grant put pressure on Garfield, stating that the Senators of a state should have a voice on who serves in their state. Garfield stood firm. In protest, New York senators Conklin and Tom Platt resigned (Ackerman points out that Platt was the one who suggested this move, even though everyone thought of him as "Me Too" Platt.) The Senators thought their state legislature would return them to Washington. It didn't happen

One person who wasn't happy about this was a gentleman named Charles J. Guiteau. Now, he wasn't a politician, so he didn't use politics to oppose Garfield. Instead, he used a gun. After he shot the President, Guiteau admitted he did it, adding, "I'm a Stalwart, and Arthur will be president."


I'll skip over the time it took for Garfield to die, and that it was more to medical malpractice than the bullet (the doctors didn't bother washing their hands before operating). Rather, I want to look at what happened after the President passed. What was Rutherford B. Hayes response? "Arthur as president? Good God!" 

Arthur is ranked on the lower end of "average" presidents by most historians. Actually, he exceeded expectations to reach that spot. He was one of the few Vice Presidents to replace a dead president to give an inaugural speech, to indicate he took his job seriously.

In reality, Guiteau unwittingly lead to the demise of the Stalwarts. Conklin visited his friend in the White House, encouraging him to fire Garfield's custom office appointee. Arthur refused. He also vetoed two pieces of legislation his party passed out of Congress: a 20 year moratorium on Chinese immigration (he later signed a 10 year version) and a bill designed to help the Mississippi River area, but didn't do much for the rest of the country.

How many of you are familiar with this bit of Presidential history?



 

Thursday, January 19, 2023

VIDEO REVIEW - 2000 MULES BY DINESH D'SOUZA

 

Personal note. I had started two other blogs for this date, and felt a check on posting them. And after I started this one, I wasn't sure if I wanted to post it. 😢 After thought and prayer, I felt I should go ahead and publish it. No, I don't consider this a must read. 

It was a Saturday night, 7pm EST, early November 2022, after the mid-term elections. Becky and I, as usual, had watched the latest Gospel Music Showcase with Guy Penrod, and saw Daystar's list of what the next three programs were. Normally, they had a movie at that time, and the scheduled one for the evening was "2000 Mules." I had no knowledge or interest in it, and I went to the computer to work on the blog. But Becky watched as I listened with an occasional glance at the TV.

For those unfamiliar with this book, it deals with the 2020 elections. Was the election, as you probably heard from at least one journalist was "The most secure election. Ever." really secure? Or for that matter, was it secure for those who wanted a certain outcome?

This documentary did a good job of raising questions. No home runs and no smoking guns. However, there were a lot of things that made me unsure if everything was kosher. 

Voter fraud is not a new thing. I've read bios of James Garfield and Chester Arthur, both pointing out that there may have been some underhandedness. The video featured someone who looks out for voter fraud and caught a Republican. 

I am not convinced the election of '20 was stolen, either before or since seeing the video. As mentioned, though, there are things that make me skeptical. Such as the video showing journalist after journalist saying, quote, "This was the most secure election. Ever." The number saying the exact same thing makes me cringe, and resorting to hyperbole by adding "Ever" doesn't help me trust the media.

However, comparing the '22 election results, where the expected red wave dissipated after seeing inflation in general and gas prices rise, I'm not sure how true the elections are, or if they're manipulated to put and keep one party in power.