Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Savannah wrote: "Hi Mike, At the beginning of chapter 4, you describe a very ominous situation occurring in the Fall.

QUESTION: What year was this that you are describing?

QUESTION: If every year there was a mig..."

Hi Savannah. You found the only section in the book without a date header (I think). I didn't put a date on it because I was trying to convey the precarious economic conditions that occurred every autumn. At harvest time, the banks were always stretched thin, causing interest rates to spike. That was not enough to create a panic on its own, but it made the economy more susceptible to shocks.

Imagine a tire on a car with one weak spot. Every time the wheel revolves, the weak spot makes contact with the road. When the road is smooth, everything is ok, and the car keeps moving. But if the weak spot on the tire happens to make contact with a sharp rock, the tire blows.

1907 was a bumpy road. Currency was especially tight because of insurance payments after the earthquake, and investors were jumpy. There was a small panic in March, but the banks had sufficient assets to ride it out. October was the weak spot. When the Heinz' brothers blunder led to a bank run, it was like a spark in a dry forest. Bank after bank began to fold. And if Morgan hadn't managed to hold the line, it could have been far worse.

Question: Do you have any idea why the press reported Nellie Taft's stroke as a "nervous breakdown?" Was that an instruction from the White House itself or was it their own idea to stigmatize her? Today, a nervous breakdown would certainly be seen as stigmatizing, but it might not have been that way then.

Lewis had a question Michael which I am moving over here:

Question:

A question for author Michael Wolraich:
At the bottom of page 62, you describe the shifts and alignments that moved us toward a two party system. Would you say that the two same basic parties exist today...or are the current parties completely unlike what was developing at that time?

reply | delete | flag *

Here is another one from Lewis which I am moving over here:

Question:
A question for author Michael Wolraich:

It is striking to see on page 42 how powerful the Speaker of the House was at that time...no one seemed able or willing to cross him. Would you say that the same power and influence may rest in the hands of one member of Congress today...or is that a characteristic of a bygone era? Is this power due primarily to force of character and personality, or would there be other significant factors at play as well?
Lewis C.

reply | delete | flag *

Question: Michael, you begin Chapter 7 describing Madison's support of a tariff, but wasn't it Hamilton who developed this idea and Madison merely agreed with its merit and was the means of pushing this legislation through Congress?

Micheal, I may have missed this in all the numerous questions and answers you have, but I have to ask about the content of the book as a whole. I am impressed on the conversations that you have put into the text. How did you get so much material regarding conversations between the different people? I am amazed. I would not have expected record keeping to be so well during these days so I did not expect the conversational aspect of the read. Great book and thanks for sharing with us!

Hi Savannah, Hamilton pushed for tariffs and other taxes after becoming Secretary of State in September of 1789. I'm not aware that he was a strong tariff proponent when Madison's bill was being debated earlier that year, but the revolutionary era is not my forte, and I could be mistaken.

Thank you very much, Jack. I'm glad to hear you've enjoyed the book. Dialogue adds so much depth to narrative, so I included it wherever I could find it--memoirs, press, letters, and the congressional record.

FYI, many of the memoirs were written long after the fact, so you should take some of the dialogue with a grain of salt. Recall Steffens's and La Follette's conflicting recollections of the late night meeting with Roosevelt (p58).

Some sources that provided helpful dialog:

by Henry L. Stoddard (no photo)

by Frederick S. Wood (no photo)

by Joseph Patrick Tumulty

by Archibald Willingham Butt (no photo)

by Robert Marion La Follette (no photo)

by Herbert L. Satterlee (no photo)

by Gifford Pinchot (no photo)

by Lincoln Steffens (no photo)

Thank you Michael.

Michael, I know that this question may be a little outside of the scope of the book but since you have done such great research on Taft, I would like your opinion.

Question

How would you rate Taft as a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Since this is really what he wanted to do and did not necessarily desire to be the President, my impression is that he did an exemplary job in the SCOTUS.

Jill wrote: "How would you rate Taft as a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?"

Thanks, Jill. My understanding is that Taft was a competent but unexceptional chief justice. His voting record was conservative, and he didn't break much new ground, but Brandeis, who served with him, thought highly of him, remarking, "It's very difficult for me to understand why a man who is so good as Chief Justice, in his function of presiding officer, could have been so bad as President." Still, it's Justice Brandeis who we remember as a towering figure from the court in that era, not Chief Justice Taft.

Thanks you, Michael. I knew that Brandeis had a good opinion of Taft but wondered if he was as good as he might have appeared to be. He certainly was judicial looking!!!!!

Michael.......am I totally misled by my own prejudices with this statement/question?

Question
You have presented TR in a pretty positive light regarding his bolting from the party. I must admit that I am not a particular fan of his and always felt that he had an overwhelming and overweening desire to remain "in the spotlight and in charge" and that he actually felt that he was popular enough to pull off a third party run. Although his actions were mirroring those of LaFollette, did he think that he was justified in this transformation while LaFollette was not because he was not a popular figure? I feel that TR's ego was driving him and he was looking to ensure his place in history. I'm sure I am in the minority with this opinion!!!!

I don't have a question but now that I've finished reading I just wanted to say thank you to Michael for a great read! So, THANKS MICHAEL! :-)

Jill wrote: "Although his actions were mirroring those of LaFollette, did he think that he was justified in this transformation while LaFollette was not because he was not a popular figure? I feel that TR's ego was driving him and he was looking to ensure his place in history. I'm sure I am in the minority with this opinion!!!!"

Thanks, Jill. It's an interesting question. You're right that TR had a huge ego and was very concerned about his legacy. He used to write carefully-worded "posterity letters" to record his ideas for future historians. And he certainly believed himself to be a more capable leader than La Follette.

But that is not to say that he was driven by ambition alone. Both TR and La Follette (and most great leaders, I think) had trouble separating themselves from their causes. Each man believed himself to be singularly capable of leading the progressive movement.

So, to answer your question, no you're not misled my your prejudices ;). TR certainly sought personal glory, but he also believed that he was answering a higher call at a critical moment in history that he could not ignore.

Jordan wrote: "I don't have a question but now that I've finished reading I just wanted to say thank you to Michael for a great read! So, THANKS MICHAEL! :-)"

Thank YOU, Jason. I'm very glad to hear that you enjoyed it.

Michael, I am really enjoying this book - and I find the division into smaller sections very helpful. I don't often have long stretches of reading time - though I always wish I could keep reading!

Question
What made TR choose Taft as his successor? He must have known Taft did not have the same forceful character needed to carry on TR's agenda. I could understand TR's choice better if he planned on staying around to give Taft moral support, but her virtually disappeared for 15 months. Did he deliberately choose someone less memorable and effective than himself?

Michael not sure you saw that last question above from Mary Ellen

Mary Ellen wrote: "What made TR choose Taft as his successor? He must have known Taft did not have the same forceful character needed to carry on TR's agenda."

Hi Mary, I'm so sorry that I didn't notice this question before. I don't think TR deliberately set up Taft for failure, but he clearly did not choose his successor well. Part of the problem was that he didn't trust aggressive reformers like Bob La Follette who would have fought harder for progressive change. TR appreciated Taft's cautious pragmatism and regarded him as a gentler version of himself. In fact, his first choice may have been Secretary of State Elihu Root, who was even more conservative than Taft. (Ironically, Root presided over the 1912 Republican convention that blocked TR's nomination.)

So Taft's complaint that he was just doing as TR had taught him had some merit. But TR was evolving, while Taft still acted liked it was 1904. By 1912, they had drifted much further apart than they were when TR began grooming him for the presidency.

As for TR's extended absence, his trip abroad was a principled decision to give Taft some space. He knew that his towering presence would overshadow the new administration, so he arranged to remove himself from the picture.

Hindsight is 20-20 of course, but I'm not sure who TR might have chosen instead of Taft. The prominent figures in his administration were fairly conservative and except for Root, not particularly presidential. And if he had chosen a more progressive politician from outside the White House, the Republicans probably wouldn't have gone along with it.

In any case, I'm very glad that you enjoyed the book. Thank you for your participation in the reading group.

Thanks Michael - your answers have been superb.

Michael, curiously do you believe that TR chose Taft because he always had it in the back of his mind that he desired a third term?

Brina wrote: "Michael, curiously do you believe that TR chose Taft because he always had it in the back of his mind that he desired a third term?"

Hi Brina, thanks for your question. I think TR regretted his decision to renounce a third term, but I see no evidence that he set up Taft to fail. I would add that Roosevelt tended to live in the moment, so he was not the type to plot four years down the road. Taft described him an "opportunist," who reacted to changing conditions in this wonderful quote that says so much about both men:

“The fact of the matter is,� Taft told Archie Butt, “if you were to remove Roosevelt's skull now, you would find written on his brain '1912.' But he is so purely an opportunist that should he find conditions changed materially in another year and you were to open his brain, you would not find there 1912, and Roosevelt would deny it was ever there.

Excellent quote and example Michael

Bentley wrote: "Excellent quote and example Michael"

Thank you, Bentley. I love that quote. I wanted to include it in the book but never found a good place for it.

It is perfect from two viewpoints - one it shows what Taft really thought of his old friend TR and maybe it shows how TR might have operated whether he admitted that to himself or not or even realized it.

TR was so unlike Taft - one was a plodder and a reactionary - the other TR - just lived life and made things happen. He knew how to flow with events.