Book release today: William Howard Taft and the First Motoring Administration

McFarland Publishers Co. ^ | Aug 28, 2003 | Michael L. Bromley

[nicollo]

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, Box 611, Jefferson, North Carolina 28640, USA.

Press Release

William Howard Taft and the First Motoring Presidency, 1909–1913

by

Michael L. Bromley

ISBN: 0-7864-1475-8
447pp. 86 photographs, statistics, notes, glossaries, appendices, bibliography, index $49.95 illustrated case binding (7 x 10) 2003

William Howard Taft declared, “I am sure the automobile coming in as a toy of the wealthier class is going to prove the most useful of them all to all classes, rich and poor.” Unlike his predecessors, who made public their disdain for the automobile, Taft saw the automobile industry as a great source of wealth for this country. The first president to acquire a car in office (Congress granted him three automobiles), Taft is responsible for there being a White House garage in 1909.

This is a look at the Taft presidency, his cars, his relationship to the automobile and the role of the automobile in the politics of his day. Appendices provide information on the White House garage and stable, Taft’s speech to the Automobile Club of America and a glossary of terms and names.

Michael L. Bromley is a writer of political and social commentary and automotive history. He lives in Bethesda, Maryland.

All rights reserved.

[x]

Congratulations!

Something to celebrate!

[nicollo]

That's not the usual reaction to WHT -- not that I object. Just curious. Why "visionary"? (And I agree)

[nicollo]

LOL!

From you, x, many, many thanks!

[gonzo]

Well, Michael, it's about damned time! Congratulations, pal..........FRegards

[Chong]

Michael,
I am so happy for you, friend. CONGRATULATIONS!!!
I demand that my copy be personally signed by you. (I know where you live!....???)

Hey, I've an idea for your next book after the one you just started. How'bout a book about Jim and all the interesting FReepers you've met on FR, eh? As a kind of a conservative profile/analyzing thing, the internet revolution, and what effect the current day technology had on the politics and the liberal media in the long run, etc.??

(If eye kood spell renaissance, I would say that we are living in the technoligical renasance times).

[Al Simmons]

Please. I had a longish exchange with Mr. Bromley some months back. Taft was a nice guy, but an utterly incompetent president, who allowed himself (much like George Bush I) to be persuaded that he couldn't do much with an opposition Congress. His capitulation on key issues was what drove TR crazy and led Roosevelt to destroy Taft's presidency.

TR and Taft did reconcile during WW I, and found out that they both hated Wilson's policies.

Finally, TR was a "shoo-in" as the GOP nominee in 1920, and WOULD have EASILY won a third term as president in that year, but for his untimely death in January 1919. That left us with Harding (that must be the 'victory of Taft' he refers to. Need I say more?)

I know little about Mr. Bromley but can safely say - as one who considers himself a bit of an amateur scholar on the period (and an expert on TR) that his bizarre book tries to turn reality on its head. An example of hero-worship of a most peculiar variety, due to the presidential mediocrity of its subject. Now, I know nothing at all about Taft and his automobiles (TR was the first president to actually DRIVE an auto, as I recall), and perhaps this would have made for an interesting work. But by pulling in his bizarre theories about Taft's superiority to TR, he has frankly created what may be an interesting, but ultimately wrong, contribution to the literature on this period.

Even the descriptions of Taft in the preface above are bizarre in that they indicate to even the casual reader that Taft was a "weathervane" who flip-flopped on issues left and right. How this becomes a mark of his greatness is something that I won't have the time nor the inclination to read.

Nothing personal, Mr. Bromley, but the "horse is WAAAYYY out of the barn" on this one. Good luck with your book nonetheless.

Cordially,

Al.

[bmwcyle]

Bttt and prayers for success.

[nicollo]

Thanks!

[nicollo]

Gonzo!!!

I'm back from summer, and in fighting form. So glad to see you here! How's the Mata-Sherrie?

I truly hope your recovery is as strong as your spirit. You're a hero, bud.

[nicollo]

As I said above, I'm interested in any and all criticism, and yours is welcome.

My book only delves into TR as regards Taft, and treats the Roosevelt presidency only in the final months of 1908 and 1909. Otherwise I address only the ex-president Roosevelt of 1909-1913, a far different creature than the President Roosevelt.

Like the Taft and Roosevelt biographer, Pringle, you've judged Taft's presidency by Harding -- who came eight years later. As for your desire for TR's election in 1920, we'll have to work on the physics a bit to fix it. TR sure might have won in '20, but only if Lincoln or Washington didn't run against him.

You're passionate about TR. I hope you're not quite so passionate about his more dangerous ideas, especially those he imposed upon the nation during the Taft presidency. During that time, TR was intemperate, disloyal, and egomaniacal, and he allied himself with discontent and radicalism. His closest friends, such as Henry Cabot Lodge, Elihu Root, and, yes, Taft, watched with bewilderment and sadness.

Reverance for TR keeps some folks from seeing anything in him but greatness. He was a complicated man, both great and greatly dangerous. My objection to the TR cult is that it is as narrow-minded as the man himself could be. That trait helped him focus and achieve many things -- good and bad.

Two things you mentioned above I need to address specifically, if only for others to be aware:

First, you wrote,

"Taft was a nice guy, but an utterly incompetent president, who allowed himself (much like George Bush I) to be persuaded that he couldn't do much with an opposition Congress. His capitulation on key issues was what drove TR crazy and led Roosevelt to destroy Taft's presidency."

I wish only to point out to anyone reading this that the above statement goes to the heart of history's inability to comprehend the Taft period. Secondly, I'm sorry you've chosen to defend TR as a promotoer of the automobile. He missed every opportunity to endorse it, and instead suppressed it during his presidency. The book tells both stories, so I won't bother with more for now.

Al, if you choose to read the book, I will appreciate your criticism, especially as regards any facts you disagree with. We all have our theories. I've done my best to build mine from the facts. I've admitted up front that mine is an enthusiastic account of Taft. Nevertheless, I am confident in my history, and confident I have made my case.

Meanwhile, I hope folks will enjoy the book and learn a thing or two about the Taft period. This may not work with you, Al, but for others it may -- try this little exercise: close your eyes and picture Taft.

Now try it again, and do it in color instead of black & white. That's what I've tried to do with this book.

My greatest hope is to add to the debate, as has already happened given our exchanges on this, and to make folks aware of the importance of the Taft presidency in the shaping of the America we know.

Thanks for checking in.

[nicollo]

Thanks, Chong!

Somebody will most certainly have to tell the JimRob story. He has transformed politics in a way not seen since the introduction of the train, telegraph, automobile, radio, etc.

It took specific actors to apply those technologies to politics (Taft did it with automobiles). With the internet, JimRob's the one! It's a fascinating and important story, and one I am certain will be chronicled in book form. I'd sure be honored to do it, but I'm launched into the next project, on the 1912 election, and that will go at least another three years.

FR has been great for my research in this current book, principally by way of testing ideas (i.e. getting into fights, lol!). I've made a few enemies (in ideas) and a lot of friends doing it, and each thread has added to my understanding.

With thanks to you, for your enthusiasm and support, and to JimRob for this wonderful gathering place.

[nicollo]

While I know you prefer to dismiss me as Taft-zany, it occurs to me that it'd be fun, and useful, I hope, to put together a public debate on our competing thoughts, or with another author or scholar. I don't know where you are located, but I'd be happy to go your way as part of my book tour and set up something, perhaps at a book store or book club.

I offer the same to anyone else.

I'd be glad to do something on-line, after the first reviews of the book come out.

[nicollo]

Huck, got the first copy of the book yesterday, and it's got the typo front and center on page one!

My father says this is a good sign. He says that Navajos wove mistakes into their rugs as a way to dispel demons... God bless Dad -- he always looks on the good side of things.

Thanks for pointing it out. Now, onward to find more errors... lots of evil spirits to scare off.

[Huck]

Then again, look what happened to the Navajos!

[nicollo]

Lol!

Well, their surviving descendants and their unique language helped save the Union. Some say I write in my own special language, too, so we could be on to something.

[x]

Can't we all just get along ...

Why the strife?

This may be the right moment to relaunch the "Billy Possum" dolls that never caught on as much as "Teddy Bears."

Remember the good times. "U-N-I-Ted" Forever!

[philman_36]

Well, congratulations!
I should get off of my duff myself and start one...
A procrastinator, to the end, am I.

[philman_36]

He says that Navajos wove mistakes into their rugs as a way to dispel demons...
That is an interesting little factoid isn't it. As with their sandpaintings.
Many weavers today will not make an exact replica of a sandpainting illustration; designs are woven into rugs with errors included. But increasingly, sandpaintings are being reproduced exactly in an effort to preserve Navajo art and culture.

[nicollo]

Billy Possum dolls!!!

(corrected the link here)

That's too funny -- although it's a joke that wore thin on Taft. It came of his stay in Georgia over the winter of 1908-1909 as President-elect. It was a significant move by Taft to spend his holidays at Augusta, Georgia, an appeal to the South by a Republican and a demonstration that the region's parole was over (a movement McKinley started, and followed-on by Roosevelt). In honor of Taft, and having nothing to do with Taft personally or his weight, the Governor of Georgia sent out an appeal for the biggest 'possums for a dinner to be held for Taft in Atlanta.

Jan. 15, 1909, Atlanta, GA.

Following the dinner, 'possum became a Taft metaphor. Everywhere he went in the South, 'possum was served, and citizens sent 'possums to the White House, to his train, to his boat. Finally, in late 1909, after someone snuck a live 'possum on either his boat or his train (can't remember which, off-hand), Taft said that while he appreciated the 'possum gestures, he "doesn’t hanker for it."

There's a wonderful Judge cover that shows Taft and TR fighting:

The caption reads,

Roosevelt: "I can lick my weight in wildcats, C.Q.D!"
Taft: "Oh, that's nothing; I can eat my weight in 'possums, P.D.Q!"

As for "why can't we all just get along" ... I suppose we'll just have to read the book!

Thanks, x.

Btw, that last cartoon of the elephant on TR's platform is precise.

[nicollo]

Heh, thanks! Get yer work done. The only difference between a published book and an unpublished book is that the latter was finished.

That's fascinating about the sand-painters. Great link! So now we've got a double negative, sand-painters who won't make a mistake in copying the implied mistakes of the Navajos.

Did I get that right?