History Q & A

How Do Historians Evaluate the Administration of Abraham Lincoln?

by Matthew Pinsker

There is a widespread impression that Abraham Lincoln entered the White House with practically no experience. Almost everybody has heard stories about how the small-town prairie lawyer served only a single term in Congress and did not hold public office for over a decade prior to his inauguration. Many people even believe that he had been something of a failure in the years before his presidency.His story has provided one of the nation's more enduring variations on the classic outsider myth - and also one of the more misleading. The truth is that Lincoln became a great president because he was so thoroughly prepared for the demands of the job. During an era of intense partisanship and shifting political alignments, he was arguably the most seasoned candidate and party leader ever to occupy the White House. If this presumably straightforward conclusion has been somewhat lost in the historical shuffle, it is because political virtues are among the least appreciated within an American culture that traditionally bemoans the failures of its"system."ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

How Do Historians Evaluate the Administrations of TR and JFK?

by Bruce Miroff

Americans like to make heroes (or villains) out of presidents. The history books give presidents disproportionate space compared to other important figures (although not as much as they used to do); the contemporary media collaborate by giving presidents disproportionate coverage. As a result, Americans are far more aware of the deeds of presidents than of any other political figures. In 1990, almost every American could identify President George Bush, yet a national survey found that only three percent of Americans could identify Justice William Brennan, Jr., a political figure whose impact on American life was far more profound than Bush's would prove to be.

How Do Historians Evaluate the Administration of Jimmy Carter?

by Stephen Hess

Editor's Note: Following is a column Mr. Hess wrote in June 1978, when Jimmy Carter was just midway through his term. We think it's worth reprinting. It shows how early Carter's flaws became apparent to eagle-eyed pundits like Mr. Hess.Let us assume that Jimmy Carter is an intelligent, decent, hardworking man. Assume, moreover, that he has appointed to his cabinet and sub-cabinet many men and women who are experienced and dedicated. How, then, can a president - certainly no less mentally alert than most past presidents - with many advisers of high caliber, produce such an undistinguished presidency?It's a puzzlement. And it cannot be accounted for by most of the explanations currently in vogue, such as: Carter's an outsider who really doesn't understand the levers of national governance; or Carter surrounds himself with a"Georgia Mafia" whose weaknesses are the same as his own; or Carter is a bad manager who hasn't been able to sort out decisions that a president must make from those that should be settled at lower levels; or Congress is so uncontrollable that it will not allow any president to exercise the reins of leadership; or the bureaucracy has grown beyond the span of presidential control; or many of the nation's problem's are highly intractable; or even all these reasons taken together - although there is truth in all.

How Do Historians Evaluate the Administration of Dwight Eisenhower?

by Fred Greenstein

Dwight David Eisenhower is the least well understood of the modern presidents: enormously popular with the American public from his time as supreme allied commander in Europe during World War II through his death in 1969, but long held by analysts of American politics to have been a non-performing president. A poll of specialists on the presidency conducted the year after Eisenhower stepped down relegated him to the rank of nineteenth-century nonentities like Chester Arthur. Within two decades, however, a transformation of Eisenhower's reputation had begun in the scholarly literature. As the inner records of his presidency came into the public domain, an Eisenhower emerged who was far removed from the image he cast as figurehead president -- giving the lie to the 1950s joke that it would be terrible if Eisenhower died and Vice President Nixon became president, but infinitely worse if Sherman Adams (Ike's stony-faced chief of staff) died and Eisenhower became president.

How Do Historians Evaluate the Administration of Harry Truman?

by Alonzo Hamby

Harry Truman remains a controversial president. Revisionist scholars condemn his decision to pursue a Cold War with the Soviet Union and deride his failure to secure passage of most of his wide-ranging Fair Deal social program. Many others, myself among them, believe that containment of the Evil Empire was a necessity, that Truman's incremental domestic achievements were substantial, and that he preserved the liberal-internationalist identity of the Democratic party. Surveys of presidential achievement usually place him well within the top ten and rate him a"near-great." Truman was an intelligent, well-read man, if not much of a speaker nor especially quick on the draw in the question-and-answer formats so prized in today's politics. His achievement was the result of wide and varied experience, a measured decisiveness, an allegiance to his party, a guiding ideology, and a transcendent sense of the public interest.EXPERIENCE

How Do Historians Evaluate the Administration of Lyndon Johnson?

by Robert Dallek

What makes a great president? Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt are almost universal choices among historians as setting the standard. Each was a practical visionary with an uncommon hold on the imagination of their countrymen - during their own times and as admired historical figures.Where does Lyndon B. Johnson fit in the pantheon of great, near great, average, below average and failed presidents? LBJ stands with a handful of important presidents who had exceptional accomplishments and some terrible failures. In the twentieth century, the predecessor who most seems to parallel LBJ is Woodrow Wilson. A great leader in domestic affairs, Wilson fell well short of his stated goals in foreign policy. His hopes for nonintervention in the Western Hemisphere and World War I as well as his dreams of lasting peace at the end of the fighting in 1918 were never realized.SIGNALS OF SUCCESS Johnson suffered a similar fate in the White House. As the successor to a martyred John F. Kennedy in 1963, Johnson seized upon the national mood of regard for the fallen president to win passage of his major unrealized legislative initiatives - an $11 billion tax cut, the 1964 civil rights bill, and subsequently, in 1965, the Medicare/Medicaid and federal aid to education laws.

Who Was Sergeant York?

by Keith Miller

In recounting episodes from the life of Alvin C. York (1887-1964), particularly his phenomenal exploit of 8 October 1918 in the Argonne Forest during World War One, it is not my intent to glorify war. Even so, the battles of history often bring out the best in men (and, of course, sometimes the worst). Let us try to honor the heroism and forget the cowardice, if not the cruelty, of many combatants.Before treating York's almost miraculous feat of arms, it is imperative to relate two circumstances from his youth--proficiency with a rifle and a conversion to Christianty. Born in Pall Mall, Tennessee, near the Wolfe River, he learned to shoot from his father William, whom Alvin called the"best shot in the mountains." Before long though the son gained a reputation for marksmanship superior to his father's.The men of the Cumberland Mountains, where the Yorks lived, perfected their shooting skills at Saturday matches, where the targets were often nothing bigger to hit than criss-cross cuts with a sharp knife on trees. At other times the men took part in what were known as"turkey shoots." On those occasions, turkeys were either tied to a stake at a distance of 150 yards, or, instead tied behind a log about 40 yards away, which meant only the bobbing heads of the turkeys became the targets.

What Did Anarchist Alexander Berkman Want?

by Derek Alger

"No, the revolutionist owes no duty to capitalist morality. He is the soldier of humanity. He has consecrated his life to the People in their great struggle. It is a bitter war. The revolutionist cannot shrink from the service it imposes upon him. Aye, even the duty of death. Cheerfully and joyfully he would die a thousand times to hasten the triumph of liberty. His life belongs to the People. He has no right to live or enjoy while others suffer."The ramblings of a modern day fanatic? Hardly. These are the words of Alexander Berkman in his Prison Memoirs of an Anarchist referring to his failed attempt to shoot and kill Henry Clay Frick, manager of the Carnegie steel works, on July 23, 1892.The sentiments may sound familiar, though the magnitude and consequences of acts of terror in the contemporary world are so much greater. But over a century ago, Berkman, a Jewish immigrant from Russia boarded a train in New York City, his final destination, Pittsburgh. His goal, simple and clear-cut, to kill Frick in an attempt, described by John William Ward in a 1970 essay on Berkman's memoirs as"a political deed of violence to awaken the consciousness of the people against their oppressors."

How Has the Onset of War Coincided with Limitations on Press Freedom Throughout Our Nation's History?

by Nathan Williams

The famous muckraker, Upton Sinclair, once asked, “What good does it do us to fight for freedom abroad if, in the mean time, we are losing it at home?” The sentiment may seem to be strictly a modern, liberal anxiety (Sinclair was a socialist), but it has roots deep in American history. In his farewell address, George Washington worried that foreign entanglements might diminish the commitment to liberty at home.With an ongoing war both abroad and at home, some have voiced fears that restrictions will be imposed on the freedom of the press. A recent poll by The Freedom Forum’s First Amendment Center indicated that 7 in 10 Americans agree -- very or somewhat strongly -- that the government ought to keep the media in check. How has the onset of war coincided with limitations on press freedom throughout our nation’s history?-In 1798, with an undeclared naval war with France raging, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed. The Sedition Act prohibited the publication of “false, scandalous, or malicious writing” directed against the government. Specific prohibited acts included publicly opposing any law or presidential act. Only 25 were arrested (though one was a Congressman) and the Acts expired in 1801.

Has Any American City Ever Faced Biological Warfare?

by George Beres

Threats of terrorism have taken many forms in recent weeks. But none more pervasive than the biological. First, cropduster planes were grounded nationally. Then cases of anthrax disease were reported in Florida. Suddenly the nation awoke to prospects of germ warfare as one of the terrible realities of international terrorism.But the frightening prospects, while new to the rest of the nation, were an old story in Oregon-- a 17-year old story that involved a conspiracy to cause sickness in one Oregon community by spreading cultivated germs at public food counters.In the wake of the September 11 airliner attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., the federal government began exploring possibilities for biological follow-up attacks. That revived memories of the poisoning of residents of The Dalles in north central Oregon by members of the Rajneeshees cult in 1984. Now departed, the controversial religious commune in the early '80s had bought and settled on a 64,000-acre plot of land in Wasco County, a few miles from The Dalles.

How Important Was Oil in World War II?

by Keith Miller

Let me begin with a short story. The great tank commander--George S. Patton--found out the hard way how important oil was (in the form of gasoline) to the war effort. His tanks were moving so fast as they approached the Seigfried Line of Germany, they all ran out of gasoline. To get more fuel to the fiery general, as quickly as possible, it had to be airlifted from Normandy.But, many more stories of a similar kind could be told. The truth is--oil was the indispensable product, in all its forms, to the Allied campaigns around the world. Without it World War Two could never have been won. For oil, once processed or refined in various ways, became the source or indispensable material for laying runways, making toluene (the chief component of TNT) for bombs, the manufacturing of synthetic rubber for tires, and the distilling into gasoline (particularly at 100-octane levels) for use in trucks, tanks, jeeps, and airplanes. And, that is not to mention the need for oil as a lubricant for guns and machinery.

Did Russian Communists Advocate Terrorism?

by Leon Trotsky

We have heard from everyone these past few weeks except the terrorists. What might they have been thinking the morning they crashed two planes into the World Trade Center Towers? We may never know. But presumably they thought their action was justified. Even madmen have their reasons.Today it is Islamic madmen who resort to terrorism. At the beginning of the last century it was Bolshevik communists. They had their reasons, too, as Leon Trostsky explained in 1920 in an infamous and frighteningly frank tract,"Terrorism and Communism," which was written in response to an attack by socialist Karl Kautsky.

Are We in Danger of Running Out of Oil?

by Keith Miller

In 1995 the American Petroleum Institute published Edward Porter's Are We Running Out of Oil? (with a fine bibliography appended). The world, including America, is indeed running out (to answer the question). This fact has been known for a long time, especially by petroleum geologists the world over. But, a renowned geophysicist, M. King Hubbert (1903-1989) of the United States, led the way in making such predictions (as long ago as 1956). By means of bell-shaped curv

Who Was Pancho Villa and Why Should We Care?

by Donald R. Shaffer

The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have elicited frequent allusions to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. The comparison is appropriate. In both cases an attack without warning cost the United States thousands of lives, and stirred fear and anger. As in 1941, the event has united Americans behind calls for military action. Politicians and journalists now speak of September 11, 2001, paraphrasing Franklin Roosevelt, as"a new day that will live in in

How Did World War I Begin?

by Keith Edgerton

Can responses to past terrorist acts provide any sort of guidance to the United States as it moves toward the brink of war? Despite the belief of nations that they can limit the scope of armed conflict, events historically have often spun out of control and led to catastrophic consequences. In light of the rising national outrage, Americans might well take a deep collective breath and reflect on the sobering chain of events leading to World War I, a particularly horrifying mess of a modern war that Americans naively believed was fought to end all wars. On June 28, 1914, Gavrilo Princip, a 19-year-old high school student, shot and killed the archduke and heir to the Austrian throne, Franz Ferdinand, and his wife, Sophie, at point-blank range in the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo. Much of Europe was outraged by this audacious, cowardly act of terrorism. Princip, a Bosnian nationalist, had connections to the Serbian ultra-nationalist organization, the Black Hand. For the Austro-Hungarians, long embroiled in a bitter territorial dispute with Serbia, this was sufficient pretext to settle old scores and to avenge the cold-blooded assassination.

What Happened When Wall Street Was Bombed in 1920?

by Beverly Gage

This past weekend marks the anniversary of what, until Tuesday, was the worst terrorist attack in the history of New York. Like last Tuesday's disaster, it struck at the heart of the city's financial district. It killed more people than most Americans imagined possible from terrorist attack. It left the city facing an unknown enemy, one whom many Americans believed had committed an act of war. And, like the destruction of the World Trade Center, it left New Yorkers and Americans with the sickening realization that their world had changed irrevocably. The attack occurred on September 16, 1920, at the corner of Wall and Broad streets, the hub of American capitalism. Just after noon, as workers poured onto the street for their lunchtime breaks, a horse-drawn cart exploded into the crowd."It was a crash out of a blue sky," one witness wrote,"an unexpected, death dealing bolt which in a twinkling turned into a shamble the busiest corner of America's financial center." By the next day, more than 30 people were dead, and within a month a total of 40 people lost their lives.

How Did the United States Respond in the Past to Bombings by Terrorists?

by Bernard Weisberger

Where to begin? With the bomb left in a horsedrawn wagon in front of J.P. Morgan’s Wall Street office on a busy Autumn morning in 1920? Its explosion killed several passers-by, wounded dozens of others, and panicked thousands more. But that wasn’t the start of it. We need to go back to 1886 when a bomb tossed into a mass meeting in Chicago’s Haymarket Square took the lives of eight policemen. In the aftermath, eight anarchists, none of them linked to the actual deed, were hastily tried and convicted. The public and press screamed for the repression of these"desperate fanatics. . .swiftly, sternly and without mercy." Four died on the gallows, one committed suicide, and three were later pardoned by a courageous Illinois governor. The"Haymarket Affair" and its resultant hysteria, 115 years ago, might well be marked as the first encounter of Americans with the new kind of political warfare embodied in the word"terrorism."

How Many Times Has the United States Been Bombed?

by HNN Staff

1995 April 19, 1995The bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City. 168 killed. The most deadly terrorist attack on American soil until 2001. Timothy McVeigh arrested and convicted and put to death.1993 February 26, 1993The bombing of the World Trade Center. 6 killed. Over 1,000 injured. 5 Islamic terrorists arrested and convicted.1983 November 7, 1983 The bombing of the U.S. Congress leaves a hole in a wall outside the Senate chamber. No injuries. 2 radicals arrested and convicted.1981 May 16, 1981The bombing of the Pan Am Terminal at New York's Kennedy Airport; a men's restroom is destroyed. The"Puerto Rican Armed Resistance" takes the credit. No injuries. No arrests.1975 December 29, 1975 The bombing of the TWA Terminal at New York's LaGuardia Airport. 11 killed, 75 injured. No arrests.January 24, 1975

What Did Woodrow Wilson Think of Anarchists?

by Woodrow Wilson

Why do some people become so angry that they are willing to turn to violence? That is now a question facing Americans. It is an old question. During the early part of the 20th century some Americans chose to make their political points through violence. Their behavior brought a sharp response from President Woodrow Wilson in November 1917. I have been very much distressed, my fellow-citizens, by some of the things that have happened recently. The mob spirit is displaying itself

What Did Did Woodrow Wilson Say in His War Message?

by Woodrow Wilson

On April 2, 1917 President Woodrow Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war against Germany. This was in response to Germany's decision to resume a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare,"ruthlessly" sending"to the bottom without warning and without thought of help or mercy for those on board -- the vessels of friendly neutrals along with those of belligerants." I was for a little while unable to believe that such things would in fact be done by any government that had hitherto subscribed to the humane practices of civilized nations. International law had its origin in the attempt to set up some law which would be respected and observed upon the seas, where no nation had right of dominion and where lay the free highways of the world. ...This minimum of right the German Government has swept aside under the plea of retaliation and necessity and because it had no weapons which it could use at sea except these which it is impossible to employ as it is employing them without throwing to the winds all scruples of humanity or of respect for the understandings that were supposed to underlie the intercourse of the world.