Wow. A book on the Republican Party, and Mr. Z neglects to include some of the more famous members of the party - I wonder why?
I guess that's what you get when you combine a neo-reconstructionist agenda, a disregard for factual accuracy, and a zeal for money into a heavily politicized history book.
Make no mistake - the history of the Republican Party is an interesting and lively topic as well as a story that needs to be told. There are many, many Republicans in history who deserve no less, and a few disreputable types who at least merit a discussion. But when somebody reaches into the barrel of Republican apples, bypasses all the shiny ones, and pulls out the half-rotten one with a bite out of the side and worms in it to venerate, the question of purpose, if not competance, comes into play. As best I can tell that is what Partisan did in his probably well-intentioned but terribly misguided book.
Think about it - He could have written a book telling the story of GOP legends like Barry Goldwater, Calvin Coolidge, Strom Thurmond, Thomas Reed, Everett Dirksen or any number of other interesting and deserving Republican leaders from our party's past. Nor did he need to isolate only the politically appealing ones. He could have talked of Thomas Nast, Marc Hanna, Milward Simpson, William McKinley and Joe Cannon. The possibilities are many. But what does he do? He pulls out two bona fide American scoundrels, Sumner and Stevens, then slaps them on the cover. He reaches in for vile atheists like Robert Ingersoll and the habitually corrupt charlatans, knaves, and con men who inhabited the Grant White House. Then he writes an entire book devoted to venerating these same pieces of human refuse as the core and central tenet of his "vision" for the Republican Party! Talk about a wasted effort...