In the mid 1880's, the Republicans were angry at Chester Arthur for not having their back once he became President. Arthur was a consummate machine politician that came up in the stinking pit of corruption of NYC. He was brought to power by being a party man and following the system of reciprocal political favors the New York machine had in place.
He was actually the collector of the port of New York for eight years before Hayes removed him as part of his early efforts to reform civil service. It's strange then that Arthur pushed through reforms and refused to make many political appointments to his cabinet and the many patronage positions that were available in civil service. The republican party thrived on those patronage appointments as ways to earn the votes and the money of their loyalists.
Whether the motivation for Arthur's principled stand was out of his true desire to be his own man, a desire to carry out Garfield's legacy after he was shot to death by an assassin (Arthur came to power as Garfield's VP) or self preservation to prevent being a murder suspect in the president's death, the Republican machine was angry at Arthur's change in heart.
They were so angry in fact that they adopted a suicidal policy of revenge. The public was on the side of reform (unless they benefited from the graft), so when the party decided to not put Arthur on the presidential ticket after his partial term was up and nominate his rival, the machine politician James Blaine, the move backfired on them.
Grover Cleveland, the Democratic nominee ran on a platform of continued reform. Civil service reform had taken place under the Garfield/Arthur administration, but Cleveland wanted to further it. Blaine and the wise old men of the Republican party wanted to reverse it and distracted the public by bringing up Cleveland's love child "Ma, ma, where's my Pa?" and base charges that the Democrats would bring "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion" to the United States if elected.
It's nice to see that they got punished for their cynical strategy and gives me hope that we could do the same in this country with our out of touch politicians.
10/30/11
NYC in the 1870's vs the 1970's: The worse bad old days
Having relocated to NYC from Ohio four years ago, I noticed that I encounter a very different opinion of New York from older people that have lived their whole life here versus people that have moved here from other parts of the country.
From the life long residents over 50, you get all the same tired platitudes about NYC being 'the greatest city in the world', but you also notice a fear of the city. They take pride in having lived through the tumultuous 1970's when buildings were burnt down for insurance money and junkies roamed the streets at night like the zombies in "I Am Legend". They caution you against going out at night and often still refuse to take the subways that were the symbol of the city's decay in the 1970's.
Times were so bad then that it seems hard to imagine a time in New York that was worse. However, in the 1870's as immigrants were pouring into the city's ports to escape the famine of Ireland and the endless wars of continental Europe, the city had the dubious distinction of having the highest death rate in the Western world.
Even though this was the golden age of the streets of gold myths about the United States, unknown numbers of New Yorkers died of exposure in the substandard tenements, fell victims to the ethnic and political gang violence, or lost the struggle with contagious diseases that gripped the poor communities as a result of poor sanitation in the areas around lower Manhattan.
While Chester Arthur held court at the 5th Avenue Hotel near the modern 26th St and Lexington with his gilded elite friends, the poorer citizens to a mile south stood in line in soup kitchens and begged for favors of the local machine politicians that ran and owned the many taverns. The issues with poverty, corruption, violence and sanitation combined to make the New York City of the 1870's make the 1970's look comparatively good. You can bet those people would take some graffiti on subways over the sewage that flowed through the streets and would be happy with the occasional crack house compared with the opium dens that dominated the early Chinatown.
From the life long residents over 50, you get all the same tired platitudes about NYC being 'the greatest city in the world', but you also notice a fear of the city. They take pride in having lived through the tumultuous 1970's when buildings were burnt down for insurance money and junkies roamed the streets at night like the zombies in "I Am Legend". They caution you against going out at night and often still refuse to take the subways that were the symbol of the city's decay in the 1970's.
Times were so bad then that it seems hard to imagine a time in New York that was worse. However, in the 1870's as immigrants were pouring into the city's ports to escape the famine of Ireland and the endless wars of continental Europe, the city had the dubious distinction of having the highest death rate in the Western world.
Even though this was the golden age of the streets of gold myths about the United States, unknown numbers of New Yorkers died of exposure in the substandard tenements, fell victims to the ethnic and political gang violence, or lost the struggle with contagious diseases that gripped the poor communities as a result of poor sanitation in the areas around lower Manhattan.
While Chester Arthur held court at the 5th Avenue Hotel near the modern 26th St and Lexington with his gilded elite friends, the poorer citizens to a mile south stood in line in soup kitchens and begged for favors of the local machine politicians that ran and owned the many taverns. The issues with poverty, corruption, violence and sanitation combined to make the New York City of the 1870's make the 1970's look comparatively good. You can bet those people would take some graffiti on subways over the sewage that flowed through the streets and would be happy with the occasional crack house compared with the opium dens that dominated the early Chinatown.
10/17/11
Chester Arthur: Change no one believed in
All presidents since Washington tried to steer the country either into a forward or backward looking direction.
Presidents such as Jefferson, Jackson and Pierce tried to look backward and restore the country to what they viewed as the Republican golden age by keeping government small, weak and as out of people's lives as much as possible. They generally opposed having a central bank that could print money, supported only state militias to protect the country and tended to put as much decision making as possible into local communities.
Other presidents such as Adams, Polk and Garfield sought to look forward and modernize the country as much as possible through maintaining standing armies, supporting a strong central bank of the United States and 'internal improvements' which were usually public works projects such as railroads, canals or dams.
Arthur's legacy would certainly put him in the latter category as a modernizing president. He sought to continue Garfield's legacy of making the civil service more professional by making the non political positions be merit based rather than simple patronage, he pushed for time zones to be created in the United States, and even pushed for an early form of NAFTA by encouraging trade treaties with Nicaragua and Mexico.
In an age of even more suspicion and anger over immigration than our own, Arthur tried to create something even more powerful than NAFTA by pushing for a common currency for all of North and South America or a sort of United States Euro zone to further international trade.
This push for a common continental currency obviously didn't pass in the United States or Latin America and still would not today, but it really speaks to how dedicated to new ideas Arthur was.
Presidents such as Jefferson, Jackson and Pierce tried to look backward and restore the country to what they viewed as the Republican golden age by keeping government small, weak and as out of people's lives as much as possible. They generally opposed having a central bank that could print money, supported only state militias to protect the country and tended to put as much decision making as possible into local communities.
Other presidents such as Adams, Polk and Garfield sought to look forward and modernize the country as much as possible through maintaining standing armies, supporting a strong central bank of the United States and 'internal improvements' which were usually public works projects such as railroads, canals or dams.
Arthur's legacy would certainly put him in the latter category as a modernizing president. He sought to continue Garfield's legacy of making the civil service more professional by making the non political positions be merit based rather than simple patronage, he pushed for time zones to be created in the United States, and even pushed for an early form of NAFTA by encouraging trade treaties with Nicaragua and Mexico.
In an age of even more suspicion and anger over immigration than our own, Arthur tried to create something even more powerful than NAFTA by pushing for a common currency for all of North and South America or a sort of United States Euro zone to further international trade.
This push for a common continental currency obviously didn't pass in the United States or Latin America and still would not today, but it really speaks to how dedicated to new ideas Arthur was.
9/29/11
Chester Arthur: A Lobbyist goes to Washington
Chester Arthur was not the politician you'd expect to launch much needed reforms in the Gilded Age, but he ended up doing just that and he paid the highest political price for it.
His political career really took off in the 'Gangs of New York' style environment of New York City in the 1870's. He was appointed Collector of the Port of New York by a political ally, President Grant. He used this position to reward Republican party loyalists and fill the coffers of the local political machine. The money was good since at that time, there was no restriction on keeping a percentage of the customs that he was able to collect.
He rose to the top level of Roscoe Conkling's Stalwart Republican political machine and held court at the Fifth Avenue Restaurant in Lower Manhattan. Arthur, with his mutton chops and love of fine liquor and prime rib could have looked no more the part of the Gilded Age politician and he played it well too, holding dinners there almost every night of the week to confer with his advisers and decide the best way to win or buy votes for the party.
He was eventually kicked out of this lucrative position when Hayes became president and removed him as part of the effort to clean of the 'spoils system' of public positions. Hayes efforts were in vain though and the reforms would require a second effort of his successor Garfield.
When Garfield was nominated for president by the Republicans in 1880, Arthur was put on the ticket by the party's 'money men' to keep Garfield from pushing the reform effort from encroaching too far on the party's interests.
Garfield was shot shortly after taking office and died some months later. As I've discussed before, this put Arthur in the awkward position of having to deflect rumors that he had a hand in the murder of the sitting president. Whether it was a desire to carry out the wishes of Garfield out of respect for the deceased president or out of a sense of deflecting rumors that he killed him, Arthur cut ties with old political allies and started to push for competitive bidding processes for government contracts and positions shortly after taking over the office of President.
This ability to put country above party endeared Arthur to the history books, but not the power brokers of his party. At the end of his partial first term, the Republicans nominated his political rival for president and didn't even give him a spot on the ticket. We'll never know if his position of the unlikely reformer increased his standing with voters since he was never given the chance to actually run for president.
Arthur's example shows that even a politician that feeds at the trough from time to time can do great things if they're willing to put the voters' interest above that of their party. Maybe both party's culture warriors could learn a thing or two from the unlikely example of Arthur.
His political career really took off in the 'Gangs of New York' style environment of New York City in the 1870's. He was appointed Collector of the Port of New York by a political ally, President Grant. He used this position to reward Republican party loyalists and fill the coffers of the local political machine. The money was good since at that time, there was no restriction on keeping a percentage of the customs that he was able to collect.
He rose to the top level of Roscoe Conkling's Stalwart Republican political machine and held court at the Fifth Avenue Restaurant in Lower Manhattan. Arthur, with his mutton chops and love of fine liquor and prime rib could have looked no more the part of the Gilded Age politician and he played it well too, holding dinners there almost every night of the week to confer with his advisers and decide the best way to win or buy votes for the party.
He was eventually kicked out of this lucrative position when Hayes became president and removed him as part of the effort to clean of the 'spoils system' of public positions. Hayes efforts were in vain though and the reforms would require a second effort of his successor Garfield.
When Garfield was nominated for president by the Republicans in 1880, Arthur was put on the ticket by the party's 'money men' to keep Garfield from pushing the reform effort from encroaching too far on the party's interests.
Garfield was shot shortly after taking office and died some months later. As I've discussed before, this put Arthur in the awkward position of having to deflect rumors that he had a hand in the murder of the sitting president. Whether it was a desire to carry out the wishes of Garfield out of respect for the deceased president or out of a sense of deflecting rumors that he killed him, Arthur cut ties with old political allies and started to push for competitive bidding processes for government contracts and positions shortly after taking over the office of President.
This ability to put country above party endeared Arthur to the history books, but not the power brokers of his party. At the end of his partial first term, the Republicans nominated his political rival for president and didn't even give him a spot on the ticket. We'll never know if his position of the unlikely reformer increased his standing with voters since he was never given the chance to actually run for president.
Arthur's example shows that even a politician that feeds at the trough from time to time can do great things if they're willing to put the voters' interest above that of their party. Maybe both party's culture warriors could learn a thing or two from the unlikely example of Arthur.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
