What do you think?
Rate this book
The American Presidents #25
William McKinley
William McKinley's election in 1896 was a breakthrough. It marked the first time in two decades that the Republican party was able to solidify its majority, putting the GOP in a position to dominate American politics for a generation. Meanwhile, the presidency had been declining in prestige and power, and McKinley's election restored it to prominence.In the century since his death, McKinley's accomplishments have been eclipsed by the charisma and public appeal of his vice president and successor, Theodore Roosevelt. But, as Kevin Phillips explains, McKinley was a major American president, deserving admission to the second tier, the capable performers below the lofty level of Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. He is among the sixteen U.S. presidents elected to two terms, and he avoided the tarnish of major scandal. It was during his administration that the United States made its diplomatic and military debut as a world power, partly through McKinley's shrewd prosecution of the Spanish-American War. McKinley is one of eight presidents who, either in the White House or on the battlefield, led the nation in successful wars; more important, he is among the six or seven whose election led to a major realignment of the U.S. party system.
208 pages, Hardcover
First published March 1, 2003
23 people are currently reading
548 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 115 reviews
December 23, 2025
William McKinley In The American Presidents Series
In his short biography, "William McKinley" (2003), political commentator Kevin Phillips brings his own background and perspective to bear in his assessment of the 25th president. McKinley (1843 -- 1901) was the first 20th Century president (1897 -- 1901). He was elected to two terms, but he was assassinated early in the second term. Theodore Roosevelt was his successor. Kevin Phillips was a Republican strategist in his early years but has since moved on. His short McKinley biography captures his interest in consensus building, political moderation, and respect for the American center and middle class. The book is part of the American Presidents series edited by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Sean Willentz. The short biographies in this series serve both to introduce the presidents to contemporary busy readers and to allow the authors to offer new insights into the chief executives and their differing styles of leadership.
Phillips' book is unabashedly revisionistic in its assessment of McKinley. For a short study, the work is full of detail, argument, and discussion of the shortcomings of earlier portrayals of McKinley. The approach is provocative and probably has a good deal to recommend it in allowing the reader to understand McKinley and the America of his day. But the writing tends to become over polemical and agenda driven. Phillips does not give the reader as much of the specifics of McKinley's administration as he might have in a short introductory biography. He doesn't tell the reader anything about McKinley's assassination, other than that it happened.
Phillips aptly sees McKinley as a pivotal president who consolidated a new American majority and ended decades of post-Civil War divisions in both parties in the United States. Phillips finds that McKinley achieved major realignments in three areas: politics, economics, and foreign policy which set the tone for much subsequent American history. McKinley's administration was definitive in its tariff policy, its commitment to the gold standard, and its expansive vision of America's role in the world, particularly in alliance with Great Britain. These policies were valuable in their day and, Phillips argues, McKinley implemented them with more flexibility and subtlety than did some of his successors. Phillips tends to see McKinley as Progressive. He put Teddy Roosevelt on the ticket as Vice-president when he did not have to do so. And Phillips argues at probably too much length that Roosevelt's progressivism followed through on McKinley's administration rather than changing its direction. Phillips' arguments in this respect rest uneasily with what he takes to be McKinley's conservative, consensus building strengths.
The McKinley that emerges from this book is a strong leader who endeavored to be inclusive and to work with many of the competing elements of American society at the time, especially labor. Phillips works to rebut the stereotype that McKinley was the tool of corporate bosses such as Mark Hanna and argues instead that McKinley was in control of his own agenda and went his own way. But I found that what is primarily at stake in Phillips' account is his admiration for McKinley's stolidity, his unobtrusive but deeply-felt Protestantism, his middle-class values, patriotism, and work ethic. Phillips tends to think these values are underestimated or disfavored by many people in a position to mold public or intellectual opinion; and this part of the study still tends, for me, to ring true. Phillips writes:
"The tendency of twentieth-century opinion molders to underrate effective two-term Republican presidents of middle-brow mien is one strand in my concluding chapter. Rebuilding the middle-class fabric of a torn and divided nation is an achievement for which GOP presidents, not least William McKinley, have gotten too little credit."
In other words, there is a tendency to prefer dynamic, charismatic leaders who function in crisis times over the virtues of ecumenicism and competence. Phillips finds a tendency to downgrade the virtues of middle of the road, conservative leaders such as McKinley whose presidency shows a "desire to heal, renew prosperity, and reunite." These qualities, Phillips argues, show that McKinley's presidency deserves more respect than it customarily receives.
Phillips book is dense and not easy to read for a basic biography. The argumentation is excessive and overdone, but Phillips' points are worth hearing and considering. This book meets the purpose of the American Presidents series in that it presents its subject in a lively, informed, and interesting way. It will encourage the reader to think freshly about McKinley, American leadership, and American history.
Robin Friedman
In his short biography, "William McKinley" (2003), political commentator Kevin Phillips brings his own background and perspective to bear in his assessment of the 25th president. McKinley (1843 -- 1901) was the first 20th Century president (1897 -- 1901). He was elected to two terms, but he was assassinated early in the second term. Theodore Roosevelt was his successor. Kevin Phillips was a Republican strategist in his early years but has since moved on. His short McKinley biography captures his interest in consensus building, political moderation, and respect for the American center and middle class. The book is part of the American Presidents series edited by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Sean Willentz. The short biographies in this series serve both to introduce the presidents to contemporary busy readers and to allow the authors to offer new insights into the chief executives and their differing styles of leadership.
Phillips' book is unabashedly revisionistic in its assessment of McKinley. For a short study, the work is full of detail, argument, and discussion of the shortcomings of earlier portrayals of McKinley. The approach is provocative and probably has a good deal to recommend it in allowing the reader to understand McKinley and the America of his day. But the writing tends to become over polemical and agenda driven. Phillips does not give the reader as much of the specifics of McKinley's administration as he might have in a short introductory biography. He doesn't tell the reader anything about McKinley's assassination, other than that it happened.
Phillips aptly sees McKinley as a pivotal president who consolidated a new American majority and ended decades of post-Civil War divisions in both parties in the United States. Phillips finds that McKinley achieved major realignments in three areas: politics, economics, and foreign policy which set the tone for much subsequent American history. McKinley's administration was definitive in its tariff policy, its commitment to the gold standard, and its expansive vision of America's role in the world, particularly in alliance with Great Britain. These policies were valuable in their day and, Phillips argues, McKinley implemented them with more flexibility and subtlety than did some of his successors. Phillips tends to see McKinley as Progressive. He put Teddy Roosevelt on the ticket as Vice-president when he did not have to do so. And Phillips argues at probably too much length that Roosevelt's progressivism followed through on McKinley's administration rather than changing its direction. Phillips' arguments in this respect rest uneasily with what he takes to be McKinley's conservative, consensus building strengths.
The McKinley that emerges from this book is a strong leader who endeavored to be inclusive and to work with many of the competing elements of American society at the time, especially labor. Phillips works to rebut the stereotype that McKinley was the tool of corporate bosses such as Mark Hanna and argues instead that McKinley was in control of his own agenda and went his own way. But I found that what is primarily at stake in Phillips' account is his admiration for McKinley's stolidity, his unobtrusive but deeply-felt Protestantism, his middle-class values, patriotism, and work ethic. Phillips tends to think these values are underestimated or disfavored by many people in a position to mold public or intellectual opinion; and this part of the study still tends, for me, to ring true. Phillips writes:
"The tendency of twentieth-century opinion molders to underrate effective two-term Republican presidents of middle-brow mien is one strand in my concluding chapter. Rebuilding the middle-class fabric of a torn and divided nation is an achievement for which GOP presidents, not least William McKinley, have gotten too little credit."
In other words, there is a tendency to prefer dynamic, charismatic leaders who function in crisis times over the virtues of ecumenicism and competence. Phillips finds a tendency to downgrade the virtues of middle of the road, conservative leaders such as McKinley whose presidency shows a "desire to heal, renew prosperity, and reunite." These qualities, Phillips argues, show that McKinley's presidency deserves more respect than it customarily receives.
Phillips book is dense and not easy to read for a basic biography. The argumentation is excessive and overdone, but Phillips' points are worth hearing and considering. This book meets the purpose of the American Presidents series in that it presents its subject in a lively, informed, and interesting way. It will encourage the reader to think freshly about McKinley, American leadership, and American history.
Robin Friedman
May 29, 2019
Kevin Phillips, author of William McKinley (2003), became known for his work as one of Nixon’s political strategists. His subsequent book, The Emerging Republican Majority (1969), predicted that Nixon’s election was the signal of a political realignment that would grant Republicans a majority for the next thirty or forty years. Which—if we consider Carter and Clinton as brief periods of reaction—turned out to be true. (Could Trump be a mere a reaction to the 2008 Democratic realignment? I fervently hope that this too turns out to be true.)
At any rate, it looks to me like Phillips conceived of this book as prequel to his earlier effort, demonstrating how McKinley was instrumental in creating the conditions for the previous Republic realignment of 1896, and how because of this—and also because of the subtle ways in which McKinley prepared the U.S. for the progressive Republican era—he deserves to be consider as one of the near-great presidents—like Polk, for example—instead of being lumped with all those forgettable Gilded Age presidents from Ohio.
Philips does a good job of proving his thesis, arguing his point with dense, cogent prose filled with supportive evidence. I came away convinced McKinley was a gifted politician and statesmen, worthy of closer attention by the American public. The only problem with Phillip’s book is that—as one of Times Book’s “The American Presidents” series—this is supposed to be a biography, and—because a biography is at bottom a story—Kevin Phillips’ treatise on political strategy and statesmanship only partially succeeds.
Philips is superb at exploring the meaning of events, but less gifted at narrating—even deigning to narrate—the actual events themselves. I’m not expecting a detailed narrative—particular in what is designed to be a short biography—but I sure could have used a little more story (OK, a lot more story) from time to time. For example, Phillips argues persuasively that McKinley—contrary to what is often claimed—was never eager to begin war with Spain—but if he had told me more about the days before the war I could have understood his point much better. (After all, it’s been more than fifty years since my American History survey course. I remember I’m supposed to “Remember the Maine!” but I can’t remember why.)
For me, Phillips most glaring omission is his failure, except for a few passing phrases, to say anything about McKinley’s assassination. True, McKinley’s assassination—unlike Lincoln’s, for example—had little to do with his career as a politician and statesmen, but this final great event of in the president’s life surely deserves a paragraph or two. The fact that Phillips neglects the event almost completely tells me that, though he may be a first-class political strategist, he lacks the “touch of the poet” that an effective historian needs.
After finishing the book, I went to Wikipedia and discovered the following facts : 1) McKinley was shot by an anarchist, 2) McKinley was shot during a visit to Buffalo’s Pan-American Exposition while in the act of greeting the public in a temporary building called “The Temple of Music,” 3) no one knows just where McKinley fell, but the Buffalo and Erie County Historical Society has placed a memorial stone and marker on a traffic island located in the middle of Fordham Drive, and 4) although this world’s fair was filled with electric light (the Exposition had its own “Electricity Building”), the room where doctors toiled to save the president was not equipped with artificial light, requiring some person to hold a metal pan, at precisely the right angle, so that sunlight could be reflected on to the operating table, thereby illuminating the president’s wounds.
Anarchist! Temple of Music! Memorial Traffic Island! Sunlight Reflected on Wounds by a Metal Pan! Now, those are the details that the inquiring mind of the poet within me wants to know!
February 23, 2016
I disliked this book for so many different reasons that it's hard to know where to start. As others have said, this is a dull read. If other authors in the American Presidents series have been able to make biographies of Chester Arthur and Benjamin Harrison interesting, there's no excuse for creating such a painfully boring book about a president whose life and presidency were arguably much more significant and interesting.
This sentence from the book's opening paragraph was a pretty good indication of how painful the rest would prove to be - "Factory whistles were his Mozart wind concertos, tariff schedules his Plato's Republic, and Civil War recollections his Herodotus." As was characteristic of his style throughout the book, Phillip's historical and literary references served to obscure rather than illuminate. This goes against one of the core objectives of the AP series, which is to make each entry "lucid enough for the student."
Perhaps my main criticism is of how this book was structured. Instead of presenting a chronological narrative of McKinley's life, the book is organized by category (McKinley & tariff policy, McKinley and trusts, etc). This made it virtually impossible to follow the trajectory of his life. Phillips made a passing reference to one of McKinley's actions as governor of Ohio, without ever having talked about the fact that he became governor. Phillips spent pages talking about 19th century Ohio, and one single paragraph about his rise to Congressman. And most frustratingly, he mentioned absolutely nothing about the details of McKinley's assassination, neither who was responsible nor what motivated them. This is inconceivable to me.
Phillips also completely failed to give readers a sense of who William McKinley was as a person. He focused narrowly on McKinley's policy positions, and gave little attention to McKinley's personal life and attributes. The limited references to his personal life are presented in the least interesting way possible, such as (after mentioning that McKinley set out for his first Congressional term with a heavy heart): "Six years earlier, at twenty-eight, he had married Ida Saxton..." I walked away from the book feeling like I "knew" McKinley no better than I had before I read the book.
As others have indicated, Phillips also focuses too much on defending McKinley and restoring his legacy. For those of us who came to the book with few negative preconceptions, this was largely a waste of precious pages in this brief biography. It almost felt like the book was directed more at other historians than at a typical reader. Early in the book he referenced political cartoons during McKinley's time, as if today's readers were well aware of these cartoons and our impressions of McKinley had been deeply impacted by them.
Unfortunately this was the only McKinley book I could find among 3 public library systems. For anyone on a journey through the presidential biographies as I am, please do anything you can to find a different McKinley book to read!
This sentence from the book's opening paragraph was a pretty good indication of how painful the rest would prove to be - "Factory whistles were his Mozart wind concertos, tariff schedules his Plato's Republic, and Civil War recollections his Herodotus." As was characteristic of his style throughout the book, Phillip's historical and literary references served to obscure rather than illuminate. This goes against one of the core objectives of the AP series, which is to make each entry "lucid enough for the student."
Perhaps my main criticism is of how this book was structured. Instead of presenting a chronological narrative of McKinley's life, the book is organized by category (McKinley & tariff policy, McKinley and trusts, etc). This made it virtually impossible to follow the trajectory of his life. Phillips made a passing reference to one of McKinley's actions as governor of Ohio, without ever having talked about the fact that he became governor. Phillips spent pages talking about 19th century Ohio, and one single paragraph about his rise to Congressman. And most frustratingly, he mentioned absolutely nothing about the details of McKinley's assassination, neither who was responsible nor what motivated them. This is inconceivable to me.
Phillips also completely failed to give readers a sense of who William McKinley was as a person. He focused narrowly on McKinley's policy positions, and gave little attention to McKinley's personal life and attributes. The limited references to his personal life are presented in the least interesting way possible, such as (after mentioning that McKinley set out for his first Congressional term with a heavy heart): "Six years earlier, at twenty-eight, he had married Ida Saxton..." I walked away from the book feeling like I "knew" McKinley no better than I had before I read the book.
As others have indicated, Phillips also focuses too much on defending McKinley and restoring his legacy. For those of us who came to the book with few negative preconceptions, this was largely a waste of precious pages in this brief biography. It almost felt like the book was directed more at other historians than at a typical reader. Early in the book he referenced political cartoons during McKinley's time, as if today's readers were well aware of these cartoons and our impressions of McKinley had been deeply impacted by them.
Unfortunately this was the only McKinley book I could find among 3 public library systems. For anyone on a journey through the presidential biographies as I am, please do anything you can to find a different McKinley book to read!
July 16, 2014
"(F)or those who paid close attention, his actions spoke louder than his careful words."
"He was not the people's slave, but their servant.... To him, the art of politics was the reconciliation of divergent interests. Government, he thought, functioned for the people, to further the total good. He had few qualms about federal power; he would be alien to subsequent generations of Republicans if they understood him."
"In politics - and in Washington especially - kindness is easily mistaken for weakness."
Book nineteen of my Presidential Challenge.
President McKinley always played his cards close to his chest. "Speak softly and carry a big stick"? Teddy Roosevelt said that but McKinley lived it. I believe this stoicism is what ultimately hurts his legacy. He left relatively few letters and papers around regarding what his political plans were because he never wanted anyone to be able to pin him down on anything. When he was suddenly gunned down, it was difficult for people to know where his Presidency would have gone for this very reason. This, coupled with him being followed by TR, everyone's favorite Presidential rascal, has caused his reputation to dim in modern times.
This should not be the case. McKinley has a very strong case for being called the first modern president. He was the first to use America's naval power in the Spanish-American War. He fostered the close friendship with England which would ultimately lead us to backing them in WWI. He finally navigated America out of its' obsession of the Gold vs Silver standard (which I still BARELY understand, by the way).
Also, many of TR's most popular policies are simply natural extensions of what McKinley put into place: Trust busting, Tariff's, and Western military supremacy. For the majority of TR's time in office, he was still surrounded by McKinley's cabinet for pete's sake!
The book also covers the personal side of McKinley. His wife suffered from severe epilepsy and McKinley waited on her hand and foot his entire life. He was deeply religious and on the right side of civil rights. He was a grand orator and really unified the Republican party.
Fun Facts:
He has a mountain named after him and is on the $500 bill. True story.
I subtracted a whole star from my review because for some reason the author refused to talk about the assassination at all. That boggles the mind!
Overall, good book about an interesting President during a very important period of American history.
"He was not the people's slave, but their servant.... To him, the art of politics was the reconciliation of divergent interests. Government, he thought, functioned for the people, to further the total good. He had few qualms about federal power; he would be alien to subsequent generations of Republicans if they understood him."
"In politics - and in Washington especially - kindness is easily mistaken for weakness."
Book nineteen of my Presidential Challenge.
President McKinley always played his cards close to his chest. "Speak softly and carry a big stick"? Teddy Roosevelt said that but McKinley lived it. I believe this stoicism is what ultimately hurts his legacy. He left relatively few letters and papers around regarding what his political plans were because he never wanted anyone to be able to pin him down on anything. When he was suddenly gunned down, it was difficult for people to know where his Presidency would have gone for this very reason. This, coupled with him being followed by TR, everyone's favorite Presidential rascal, has caused his reputation to dim in modern times.
This should not be the case. McKinley has a very strong case for being called the first modern president. He was the first to use America's naval power in the Spanish-American War. He fostered the close friendship with England which would ultimately lead us to backing them in WWI. He finally navigated America out of its' obsession of the Gold vs Silver standard (which I still BARELY understand, by the way).
Also, many of TR's most popular policies are simply natural extensions of what McKinley put into place: Trust busting, Tariff's, and Western military supremacy. For the majority of TR's time in office, he was still surrounded by McKinley's cabinet for pete's sake!
The book also covers the personal side of McKinley. His wife suffered from severe epilepsy and McKinley waited on her hand and foot his entire life. He was deeply religious and on the right side of civil rights. He was a grand orator and really unified the Republican party.
Fun Facts:
He has a mountain named after him and is on the $500 bill. True story.
I subtracted a whole star from my review because for some reason the author refused to talk about the assassination at all. That boggles the mind!
Overall, good book about an interesting President during a very important period of American history.
July 1, 2013
This biography, while interesting really annoyed me. It is not so much a biography as it is a detailing of McKinley political life and an argument that he deserves more stature amongst the list of US presidents. If this were truly a biography, one would expect for instance to learn how and by whom McKinley was assassinated. One might expect to read details about his funeral and perhaps some interesting anecdotes from his childhood. None of these can be found in this book and as a result I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as I would have liked.
December 1, 2009
And, I'm done with the Fall Challenge! WOO HOO!! And now for William McKinley's major accomplishments and "scandals":
Accomplishments:
* Kicked serious butt during the Spanish-American War. And I do mean HE kicked butt... He was a Civil War veteran and a VERY competent Commander-in-Chief. He set up the very Presidential War Room with telephones and telegraphs and was in constant contact with people in Cuba and on the battlefield, and if he didn't like what army leaders were doing or they weren't getting things done fast enough, he had no qualms about stepping in and giving direction. The war was effective by land and sea, only lasted from April 25 to August 12, with a final peace treaty signed in December. Final battlefield losses: 27 officers and 318 enlisted men died in combat or due to wounds sustained in combat. (Errr... and another 2500 officers and men died of diseases like typhoid, malaria, and yellow fever, thanks to the lovely battle locals—Cuba and the Philippines... Not really McKinley's fault there...)
*Cemented Concreted the relationship between the US and Great Britain, which would be critical to winning WWI; Also signed a peace treaty with Russia
* Finalized location of Panama Canal (it was going to be in Nicaragua!)
* Brought the country out of an economic depression (with tariffs and establishing the gold standard)
* Through Span-Am War and economic boom, turned the US into a world power
* Was pro-universal suffrage (although he didn't do much about it as president)
* Upheld Lincoln's decision to allow Blacks in the military forces. Black troops fought in the Philippines along with ex-Confederate soldiers who McKinley brought in as officers, thus helping heal the still-wounded-from-the-Civil-War nation.
* Was GREATLY admired, especially due to the fact that he took care of his invalid wife (including reading the Bible to her most nights), Ida, until his death (she was epileptic and suffered from depression, on account of losing both her children)
* Was a good guy—kind, humble, diplomatic, principled, etc. Always let others take credit where credit was due, and often didn't take credit for his own accomplishments. He often used such skilled diplomacy with his own staff that they ended up feeling like his idea had originally been their idea.
Scandals:
* Some people felt that McKinley didn't act quickly enough in declaring war on Spain after a US ship mysteriously blew up in port off of Cuba. Navy officials were convinced that it was a deliberate act of aggression by the Spanish and were pressing him to go to war. According to the author, the people in the US also wanted justice. In the two months McKinley waited, which was in part because he wanted to find a peaceful solution (he'd fought in a war, and wasn't exactly itching to have the country involved in ANOTHER war), the US was able to build up a stronger navy and then SOUNDLY defeat the Spanish by sea. Also, it turns out the explosion was caused from within the ship (faulty coal or something?) and was accidental.... Totally NOT the Spaniards' doing...
* The economic upswing resulted in acceptance of huge trusts and monopolies. (History proves that McKinley HATED trusts/monopolies, and most people agree that he would have tried to control them with regulations had he lived.)
* Other than that, nothing major. Many people thought he was weak and compliant, that he had no firm convictions of his own. Some people suspected that he was just a puppet and that Mark Hanna was pulling the strings. He had a middle-class demeanor and wasn't an extraordinary speaker.
* According to the author, over the years, people have come to think that he wasn't very well educated (because he couldn't quote the great philosophers or whatever like some previous presidents could), but he actually read extensively—mostly nonfiction on whatever political, economical, etc. subject he felt was important or he needed to know more about at the time. (BORING...)
* (Not really a scandal, but...) McKinley didn't keep many written records... at all... so many of his accomplishments have been attributed to Theodore Roosevelt (his VP/successor), who was must "better" at drawing attention to himself...
Was that long enough? I'm not sure that was long enough... ;)
Accomplishments:
* Kicked serious butt during the Spanish-American War. And I do mean HE kicked butt... He was a Civil War veteran and a VERY competent Commander-in-Chief. He set up the very Presidential War Room with telephones and telegraphs and was in constant contact with people in Cuba and on the battlefield, and if he didn't like what army leaders were doing or they weren't getting things done fast enough, he had no qualms about stepping in and giving direction. The war was effective by land and sea, only lasted from April 25 to August 12, with a final peace treaty signed in December. Final battlefield losses: 27 officers and 318 enlisted men died in combat or due to wounds sustained in combat. (Errr... and another 2500 officers and men died of diseases like typhoid, malaria, and yellow fever, thanks to the lovely battle locals—Cuba and the Philippines... Not really McKinley's fault there...)
*
* Finalized location of Panama Canal (it was going to be in Nicaragua!)
* Brought the country out of an economic depression (with tariffs and establishing the gold standard)
* Through Span-Am War and economic boom, turned the US into a world power
* Was pro-universal suffrage (although he didn't do much about it as president)
* Upheld Lincoln's decision to allow Blacks in the military forces. Black troops fought in the Philippines along with ex-Confederate soldiers who McKinley brought in as officers, thus helping heal the still-wounded-from-the-Civil-War nation.
* Was GREATLY admired, especially due to the fact that he took care of his invalid wife (including reading the Bible to her most nights), Ida, until his death (she was epileptic and suffered from depression, on account of losing both her children)
* Was a good guy—kind, humble, diplomatic, principled, etc. Always let others take credit where credit was due, and often didn't take credit for his own accomplishments. He often used such skilled diplomacy with his own staff that they ended up feeling like his idea had originally been their idea.
Scandals:
* Some people felt that McKinley didn't act quickly enough in declaring war on Spain after a US ship mysteriously blew up in port off of Cuba. Navy officials were convinced that it was a deliberate act of aggression by the Spanish and were pressing him to go to war. According to the author, the people in the US also wanted justice. In the two months McKinley waited, which was in part because he wanted to find a peaceful solution (he'd fought in a war, and wasn't exactly itching to have the country involved in ANOTHER war), the US was able to build up a stronger navy and then SOUNDLY defeat the Spanish by sea. Also, it turns out the explosion was caused from within the ship (faulty coal or something?) and was accidental.... Totally NOT the Spaniards' doing...
* The economic upswing resulted in acceptance of huge trusts and monopolies. (History proves that McKinley HATED trusts/monopolies, and most people agree that he would have tried to control them with regulations had he lived.)
* Other than that, nothing major. Many people thought he was weak and compliant, that he had no firm convictions of his own. Some people suspected that he was just a puppet and that Mark Hanna was pulling the strings. He had a middle-class demeanor and wasn't an extraordinary speaker.
* According to the author, over the years, people have come to think that he wasn't very well educated (because he couldn't quote the great philosophers or whatever like some previous presidents could), but he actually read extensively—mostly nonfiction on whatever political, economical, etc. subject he felt was important or he needed to know more about at the time. (BORING...)
* (Not really a scandal, but...) McKinley didn't keep many written records... at all... so many of his accomplishments have been attributed to Theodore Roosevelt (his VP/successor), who was must "better" at drawing attention to himself...
Was that long enough? I'm not sure that was long enough... ;)
February 1, 2014
This book was quite different than the previous three I have read in this series. I suspect this is because of the author's unique experience: not only is he a historian/political scientist, but he actually worked for the Republican party at one point in his career. The book read not as much a biography as a political analysis. Unlike the others I have read in this series, a great deal of attention was paid to McKinley's political legacy, especially in the ways his successor Teddy Roosevelt did and did not continue in McKinley's shoes. Phillips makes the intriguing suggestion that McKinley's presidency, and not TR's, should be considered the proper starting point for the progressive era. He points to . All in all, this book did more than any others in the series thus far in changing my opinion of a president. On to Andrew Jackson next!
May 31, 2017
Not a poorly written biography, just incomplete and extremely limited. The thesis of this book is essentially "William McKinley isn't THAT boring", which is a bad thesis. The book is dragged down by trying to adhere to that central argument when it should just tell the narrative of McKinley's life. If I get through a McKinley biography not even being told why the dude was assassinated or what the social climate of the US was during his presidency, that's kind of a problem.
November 12, 2018
I finished this one well over a month ago but have been swamped with work so am just now getting to this review. Consequently, my notes are a little rougher than they otherwise would be if I had knocked this out right away. Having read multiple installments from The American Presidents series, the books are usually very favorable towards their subject. Kevin Phillips’ William McKinley is no different. The author starts with a relatively modest proposition, that McKinley belongs in the second tier of US Presidents. He doesn’t belong with Washington or Lincoln but he is also not in the middle of the pack where historians typically rank him. In backing up this thesis, the author provides some compelling arguments: he 1) broke the post-Civil War Electoral College gridlock and forged the modern GOP coalition that dominated the next several decades (in much the same way FDR would later do for the Democrats), and 2) he deftly led the nation to victory in the Spanish-American War and presided over the US entry as a great power on the world stage. Where the author loses is me is in his third major argument, namely that McKinley was a progressive pioneer and had his life not been cut short he would have received the accolades normally heaped upon Teddy Roosevelt. McKinley may have held some progressive positions on the issues of his day, but I’m sorry, to suggest that he deserves credit for Roosevelt’s legacy is a highly dubious counterfactual. It just wreaks of trying too hard to prove his case (when really, the first two points would have been sufficient to make his point). Still, overall, I learned a lot and am interested to pick up a meatier book on McKinley for a second opinion. 3 Stars.
What follows are my (abbreviated) notes on the book:
Born into an Ohio Whig family he was caught up in 19th-century revivalism. He was baptized as a Methodist. He started college but dropped out in his first year to volunteer for service in Civil War. He worked his way from private all the way up to brevet major. He assumed the responsibilities of the quartermaster and displayed heroic bravery under fire resupplying union troops. He served in the army of West Virginia in support of Sheridan.
Ohio’s dominance in presidential politics stemmed in large part from nominating Ohioans with battlefield experience. After Grant, Ohio would send five other men to the White House over the next 40years (Hayes, Garfield, Harrison, McKinley, Taft).
He began his political career in 1867, stumping for his regimental commander Rutherford B. Hayes in his bid for Ohio governor. In 1869, he won his first bid for political office as a Stark County prosecutor. Hayes served as a mentor and political sponsor. When Hayes became a surprise presidential candidate, he won Ohio but he only won by a one electoral vote margin due to an unseemly North-South political bargain that would haunt his unsuccessful single term as president. That same year, McKinley won a seat in Congress.
He left for Washington with a heavy heart. His wife stricken by the news of her own mother’s death, experienced a traumatic delivery. Their second daughter died in childbirth and his wife would become epileptic. Shortly thereafter, his first daughter unexpectedly died too. These events stripped away his buoyant youthful demeanor.
Recognized as a rising Republican star, Democrats in Ohio legislature tried to run him out by Gerrymandering his district but he kept on winning. Meanwhile, year after year Ohio men continued to win the presidency. Hayes in 1876, Garfield in 1880, and Harrison in 1888. McKinley used his access to his fellow Ohioans to further his political advancement in Ohio and Congress. He was appointed to the Ways and Means committee, unfortunately Democrats had finally gerrymandered him into a district he could not win shifting his geographic area south to an area full of copperheads (i.e. northern sympathizers to the confederate cause) and he lost reelection by 300 votes.
He was a significant supporter of tariffs, principally to protect labor not capital. In Ohio at that time there were not many large industrial operations. Small pig iron furnaces were everywhere and labor and capital worked closely together. They were mistrustful of larger pools of capital concentrated on the East Coast where capital and labor were not as closely bound together. His opponents use his support for tariffs to paint him as being in the pocket of plutocrats. This was a distortion of his position of fighting for decent wages for labor and the promotion of domestic industry. McKinley was not an East Coast establishment politician, as evidenced by his support bimetalism.
After Grant, the next three presidents elected from Ohio we’re all compromise candidates selected after 30+ rounds of balloting. None of them had the stature to be effective commanding chief executives. His expertise on issues that would dominate the next several decades (especially tariffs) mean he was well positioned for a presidential run. Countries emerging as industrial powers were all the talk in Europe. The admission of multiple Western states such as Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, etc complicated the national politics as they were either proponents of silver or eager to renegotiate national economic policy.
Gerrymandered out of his congressional seat, he was the GOP candidate for Ohio governor. He won by 20K votes. Given Ohio’s prominence during this period, this postured him for a presidential run in 1896. Boss Platt of New York tried to undercut McKinley by spawning a significant number of hometown hero delegates. To Platt’s chagrin, most of these fell away as McKinley solidified his hold on key swing states like Illinois. McKinley was nominated on the first ballot. The machine politicians became his foil. “McKinley against the bosses” became his campaign slogan. He was the favorite of 75% of the GOP electorate. The Hearst paper portrayed McKinley as a puppet of Hannah and the plutocrats. This was entirely fiction.
The realignment of 1896. This section of the book is excellent. 1896 marked the first time a strong Republican would win the Party’s nomination on the first ballot (and did so by beating rather than submitting to Eastern machine forces). William Jennings Bryan, the evangelical populist and outspoken advocate of bimetallism was the Democratic nominee. He’s advocacy for silver made him the candidate for the West and the South. The Republican plank of the gold standard made McKinley the candidate for the East. The Midwest would therefore be the battleground that would decide the election. The author makes a compelling argument that no other Republican could have won the Midwest. Speaker of the House Reed from Maine (the most likely alternative) was a vocal advocate for gold and had an eastern accent. This would’ve played right into Bryan‘s hands. McKinley was able to bridge the divide. He appealed to a wide constituency. From a very religiously diverse part of Ohio he didn’t alienate Catholics like William Jennings Bryan did. German Lutherans and Catholics were a growing section of the electorate and they distrusted Protestant crusaders who disdained their cultural differences (like their beer gardens which teetotaling evangelicals disliked). His stance on tariffs in support of laborers appealed to industrial immigrants working in the factories in the cities. German-Americans swung 20 points since the last election tipping the Midwest in his favor.
In addition to domestic realignment, he also was transformational in international affairs. McKinley sought restraint before the outbreak of war. During the debate over the cause of explosion aboard the USS Maine, he delayed war for six weeks, giving time to evacuate Americans from Cuba and allow Congress to requisition additional ships for the Navy. William Randolph Hearst and his newspapers fomented war fever much to McKinley’s annoyance. Upon the outbreak of war Admiral Dewey destroyed the Spanish fleet in the Philippines. McKinley‘s service as a wartime staff officer during Civil War served him well as commander-in-chief. He had a firm hand and leadership throughout the war. He established the first war time command center for a president. Telegraphs allowed communications with commanders within 20 minutes. Several of his cabinet appointees at State and War, who had been appointed as rewards for faithful service, proved ineffective and resigned on the outbreak of hostilities McKinley spent long hours doing their jobs in addition to his own. His organization proved crucial to America’s quick and convincing victory. Despite additional animosities, McKinley brought about a new era of Anglo American entente. The annexation of Hawaii was not framed as a decision between monarchy or the republic, but whether Asia (i.e. Japan) or the United States would control the key strategic location of the Pacific.
In the 1900 campaign, he deferred to the Party to pick his running mate (Teddy Roosevelt). After being elected to his second term, he undertook a six-week tour of the nation. At the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, NY he was shot by the anarchist Leon Czolgosz. McKinley would die several days later allowing Vice President Roosevelt to ascend to the Presidency. TR would go on to prove a dynamic political force who advanced a number of progressive causes. Drawing on statements in some of McKinley’s papers that show support for some progressive positions, the author attempts to argue that had he lived he would have achieved several of the breakthroughs carried out by Roosevelt. Given that McKinley was a much more conventional politician and anything but a firebrand, this seemed like a stretch. This section was the weakest of the book.
What follows are my (abbreviated) notes on the book:
Born into an Ohio Whig family he was caught up in 19th-century revivalism. He was baptized as a Methodist. He started college but dropped out in his first year to volunteer for service in Civil War. He worked his way from private all the way up to brevet major. He assumed the responsibilities of the quartermaster and displayed heroic bravery under fire resupplying union troops. He served in the army of West Virginia in support of Sheridan.
Ohio’s dominance in presidential politics stemmed in large part from nominating Ohioans with battlefield experience. After Grant, Ohio would send five other men to the White House over the next 40years (Hayes, Garfield, Harrison, McKinley, Taft).
He began his political career in 1867, stumping for his regimental commander Rutherford B. Hayes in his bid for Ohio governor. In 1869, he won his first bid for political office as a Stark County prosecutor. Hayes served as a mentor and political sponsor. When Hayes became a surprise presidential candidate, he won Ohio but he only won by a one electoral vote margin due to an unseemly North-South political bargain that would haunt his unsuccessful single term as president. That same year, McKinley won a seat in Congress.
He left for Washington with a heavy heart. His wife stricken by the news of her own mother’s death, experienced a traumatic delivery. Their second daughter died in childbirth and his wife would become epileptic. Shortly thereafter, his first daughter unexpectedly died too. These events stripped away his buoyant youthful demeanor.
Recognized as a rising Republican star, Democrats in Ohio legislature tried to run him out by Gerrymandering his district but he kept on winning. Meanwhile, year after year Ohio men continued to win the presidency. Hayes in 1876, Garfield in 1880, and Harrison in 1888. McKinley used his access to his fellow Ohioans to further his political advancement in Ohio and Congress. He was appointed to the Ways and Means committee, unfortunately Democrats had finally gerrymandered him into a district he could not win shifting his geographic area south to an area full of copperheads (i.e. northern sympathizers to the confederate cause) and he lost reelection by 300 votes.
He was a significant supporter of tariffs, principally to protect labor not capital. In Ohio at that time there were not many large industrial operations. Small pig iron furnaces were everywhere and labor and capital worked closely together. They were mistrustful of larger pools of capital concentrated on the East Coast where capital and labor were not as closely bound together. His opponents use his support for tariffs to paint him as being in the pocket of plutocrats. This was a distortion of his position of fighting for decent wages for labor and the promotion of domestic industry. McKinley was not an East Coast establishment politician, as evidenced by his support bimetalism.
After Grant, the next three presidents elected from Ohio we’re all compromise candidates selected after 30+ rounds of balloting. None of them had the stature to be effective commanding chief executives. His expertise on issues that would dominate the next several decades (especially tariffs) mean he was well positioned for a presidential run. Countries emerging as industrial powers were all the talk in Europe. The admission of multiple Western states such as Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, etc complicated the national politics as they were either proponents of silver or eager to renegotiate national economic policy.
Gerrymandered out of his congressional seat, he was the GOP candidate for Ohio governor. He won by 20K votes. Given Ohio’s prominence during this period, this postured him for a presidential run in 1896. Boss Platt of New York tried to undercut McKinley by spawning a significant number of hometown hero delegates. To Platt’s chagrin, most of these fell away as McKinley solidified his hold on key swing states like Illinois. McKinley was nominated on the first ballot. The machine politicians became his foil. “McKinley against the bosses” became his campaign slogan. He was the favorite of 75% of the GOP electorate. The Hearst paper portrayed McKinley as a puppet of Hannah and the plutocrats. This was entirely fiction.
The realignment of 1896. This section of the book is excellent. 1896 marked the first time a strong Republican would win the Party’s nomination on the first ballot (and did so by beating rather than submitting to Eastern machine forces). William Jennings Bryan, the evangelical populist and outspoken advocate of bimetallism was the Democratic nominee. He’s advocacy for silver made him the candidate for the West and the South. The Republican plank of the gold standard made McKinley the candidate for the East. The Midwest would therefore be the battleground that would decide the election. The author makes a compelling argument that no other Republican could have won the Midwest. Speaker of the House Reed from Maine (the most likely alternative) was a vocal advocate for gold and had an eastern accent. This would’ve played right into Bryan‘s hands. McKinley was able to bridge the divide. He appealed to a wide constituency. From a very religiously diverse part of Ohio he didn’t alienate Catholics like William Jennings Bryan did. German Lutherans and Catholics were a growing section of the electorate and they distrusted Protestant crusaders who disdained their cultural differences (like their beer gardens which teetotaling evangelicals disliked). His stance on tariffs in support of laborers appealed to industrial immigrants working in the factories in the cities. German-Americans swung 20 points since the last election tipping the Midwest in his favor.
In addition to domestic realignment, he also was transformational in international affairs. McKinley sought restraint before the outbreak of war. During the debate over the cause of explosion aboard the USS Maine, he delayed war for six weeks, giving time to evacuate Americans from Cuba and allow Congress to requisition additional ships for the Navy. William Randolph Hearst and his newspapers fomented war fever much to McKinley’s annoyance. Upon the outbreak of war Admiral Dewey destroyed the Spanish fleet in the Philippines. McKinley‘s service as a wartime staff officer during Civil War served him well as commander-in-chief. He had a firm hand and leadership throughout the war. He established the first war time command center for a president. Telegraphs allowed communications with commanders within 20 minutes. Several of his cabinet appointees at State and War, who had been appointed as rewards for faithful service, proved ineffective and resigned on the outbreak of hostilities McKinley spent long hours doing their jobs in addition to his own. His organization proved crucial to America’s quick and convincing victory. Despite additional animosities, McKinley brought about a new era of Anglo American entente. The annexation of Hawaii was not framed as a decision between monarchy or the republic, but whether Asia (i.e. Japan) or the United States would control the key strategic location of the Pacific.
In the 1900 campaign, he deferred to the Party to pick his running mate (Teddy Roosevelt). After being elected to his second term, he undertook a six-week tour of the nation. At the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, NY he was shot by the anarchist Leon Czolgosz. McKinley would die several days later allowing Vice President Roosevelt to ascend to the Presidency. TR would go on to prove a dynamic political force who advanced a number of progressive causes. Drawing on statements in some of McKinley’s papers that show support for some progressive positions, the author attempts to argue that had he lived he would have achieved several of the breakthroughs carried out by Roosevelt. Given that McKinley was a much more conventional politician and anything but a firebrand, this seemed like a stretch. This section was the weakest of the book.
March 5, 2017
This was a very and interesting read on the personality and approach to the presidency of McKinley. McKinley was one of the few presidents assassinated and I was surprised that the authot really didn't cover any of this in the book.
February 17, 2015
William McKinley (1843-1901) was president from 1897 until his assassination in 1901. He was the twenty-five president of the United States. McKinley was a strong governor of Ohio and a decisive president whose stern looks hid a thoughtful and gentle man. William McKinley was a Civil war veteran and a Lincoln Republican.
Phillip details how McKinley presided over the emergence of the United States as a world power in the Spanish-American war. McKinley’s election in 1890 ushered in approximately forty years of Republican political dominance.
Phillip points out that McKinley was one of eight presidents, who either in the White House or on the battlefield, led the nation in successful Wars; and he was among the six or seven to take office in what become recognized as a major realignment of the United States’ party system. McKinley was among the sixteen United States presidents elected to two terms, and avoided the tarnish of major scandal.
The author points out that McKinley was a “hinge president,” whose first term ushered in the 20th century, and who ‘presided over the fruition of the Northern or Yankee version of U.S. expansionism, a commercial manifest destiny tied to increasing American exports.’
In 1901 McKinley was assassinated by a deranged anarchist’. McKinley’s vice president Theodore Roosevelt took over the presidency and carried on McKinley’s moderate platform. Roosevelt’s charisma overshadowed McKinley over historical time.
This book is more of a political analysis of William McKinley rather than a biography as Phillips tell what other historians have written about McKinley and argues with many of them. The book is narrated by Richard Rohan.
Phillip details how McKinley presided over the emergence of the United States as a world power in the Spanish-American war. McKinley’s election in 1890 ushered in approximately forty years of Republican political dominance.
Phillip points out that McKinley was one of eight presidents, who either in the White House or on the battlefield, led the nation in successful Wars; and he was among the six or seven to take office in what become recognized as a major realignment of the United States’ party system. McKinley was among the sixteen United States presidents elected to two terms, and avoided the tarnish of major scandal.
The author points out that McKinley was a “hinge president,” whose first term ushered in the 20th century, and who ‘presided over the fruition of the Northern or Yankee version of U.S. expansionism, a commercial manifest destiny tied to increasing American exports.’
In 1901 McKinley was assassinated by a deranged anarchist’. McKinley’s vice president Theodore Roosevelt took over the presidency and carried on McKinley’s moderate platform. Roosevelt’s charisma overshadowed McKinley over historical time.
This book is more of a political analysis of William McKinley rather than a biography as Phillips tell what other historians have written about McKinley and argues with many of them. The book is narrated by Richard Rohan.
November 17, 2019
Many of the volumes in this series are merely special pleading on behalf of an obscure president that the author considers underrated. William McKinley was a rather dull fellow, but Phillips makes a good case for continuity between his administration and that of his more famous successor, Teddy Roosevelt, not only in foreign policy but also in domestic policy. Had an assassin's bullet not cut short McKinley's second term, he would probably be remembered as the first Progressive president. The author also does a fair job summarizing the great party realignment of 1896 and the reasons for the sixteen/year Republican ascendancy that followed it (in a word, prosperity).
March 24, 2016
This book is a very cursory overview of William McKinley that rushes through everything and in doing so gives inadequate detail about anything. It seems that this book was written for the reader who has never heard of William McKinley. While Phillips writes around the fact that McKinley was assassinated (making Theodore Roosevelt president), the actual event is never talked about. Not the date, the place, the circumstances, nothing. The closest it comes is "... when he lay dying ...".
Trying to use this book to learn about William McKinley is like using a Yugo engine to power a Hummer - wholly inadequate for the task.
Trying to use this book to learn about William McKinley is like using a Yugo engine to power a Hummer - wholly inadequate for the task.
June 8, 2018
This book was not exactly bad, but it was very disappointing in that it did not do what most of the other (generally excellent) volumes in the American Presidents series do, which is introduce a president and a historical context to people who know very little about either the president or the historical context.
Phillips is doing something else. He is quite clear about what he is doing, which is that he wants to rehabilitate McKinley's reputation. McKinley, he argues, has always been considered a third-rate president. But he should really be considered a second-rate president. Phillips wants to take him up a -rate.
And he also makes clear why he is doing this. Kevin Phillips is a longtime Republican strategist. He is the architect of Nixon's infamous "Southern Strategy," which was to support civil rights legislation to appeal to voters in the North while using the advancing civil rights of African-Americans in the South to pry Southern voters away from their historical loyalty to the Democratic Party. It worked.
But I am not making an ad hominem attack here. I probably don't agree with Phillips about many political things, but that doesn't mean he can't write a really good biography of William McKinley. But he tells us right up front that he wants to rehabilitate McKinley as part of a package. He wants to push back against "the tendency of post-1933 opinion molders to dismiss the two-term Republican presidents of bourgeois taste and conservative politics—Eisenhower and Reagan, as well as McKinley—as of no more than middle rank despite considerable accomplishments in challenging periods" (5). Again, I have no beef with anyone who wants to make the world think better of Reagan and Eisenhower. But this is not the same as writing a biography of William McKinley, whose Republican party was nothing like those of the post-FDR era.
But it was not what Phillips put in the book that made me not like it. It was what he did not put in the book. I was not interested in a reconsideration of William McKinley because I have never really considered him. I know very little about him, the Election of 1896, or the context of his presidency. Normally I would not criticize a book for not being the book I wanted, but in this case, it is part of a series that is specifically marketed to people who want quick, short, effective introductions to American presidents and their political contexts.
I was specifically looking for a better understanding of three things. First, I wanted to get a better handle on the gold vs silver controversy that defined the politics of the 1890s. Here, Phillips does a reasonable job of explaining everything, though I still feel like I need another book to really understand it. Second, since 1896 is usually referred to as a "realigning election," I wanted to better understand what got realigned--and how they were aligned before and after the realignment. Here, the book was of very little help. And finally, since McKinley was one of only four presidents who were assassinated in office, I wanted to better understand the assassination, which Philips barely even mentions, except to complain that, by unwisely getting assassinated, McKinley caused future historians to underestimate his accomplishments.
And then there is a whole chapter on how Teddy Roosevelt should be seen as an extension of McKinley's policies rather than as someone who had his own ideas about things.
So I feel like I have a pretty good sense of Kevin Phillips--his ideology, his political concerns, his view of history, and his homes and dreams. But I don't feel that I have the same understanding of William McKinley. And that is shame, as the little that Phillips actually has to say about him makes him seem like a really interesting fellow.
Phillips is doing something else. He is quite clear about what he is doing, which is that he wants to rehabilitate McKinley's reputation. McKinley, he argues, has always been considered a third-rate president. But he should really be considered a second-rate president. Phillips wants to take him up a -rate.
And he also makes clear why he is doing this. Kevin Phillips is a longtime Republican strategist. He is the architect of Nixon's infamous "Southern Strategy," which was to support civil rights legislation to appeal to voters in the North while using the advancing civil rights of African-Americans in the South to pry Southern voters away from their historical loyalty to the Democratic Party. It worked.
But I am not making an ad hominem attack here. I probably don't agree with Phillips about many political things, but that doesn't mean he can't write a really good biography of William McKinley. But he tells us right up front that he wants to rehabilitate McKinley as part of a package. He wants to push back against "the tendency of post-1933 opinion molders to dismiss the two-term Republican presidents of bourgeois taste and conservative politics—Eisenhower and Reagan, as well as McKinley—as of no more than middle rank despite considerable accomplishments in challenging periods" (5). Again, I have no beef with anyone who wants to make the world think better of Reagan and Eisenhower. But this is not the same as writing a biography of William McKinley, whose Republican party was nothing like those of the post-FDR era.
But it was not what Phillips put in the book that made me not like it. It was what he did not put in the book. I was not interested in a reconsideration of William McKinley because I have never really considered him. I know very little about him, the Election of 1896, or the context of his presidency. Normally I would not criticize a book for not being the book I wanted, but in this case, it is part of a series that is specifically marketed to people who want quick, short, effective introductions to American presidents and their political contexts.
I was specifically looking for a better understanding of three things. First, I wanted to get a better handle on the gold vs silver controversy that defined the politics of the 1890s. Here, Phillips does a reasonable job of explaining everything, though I still feel like I need another book to really understand it. Second, since 1896 is usually referred to as a "realigning election," I wanted to better understand what got realigned--and how they were aligned before and after the realignment. Here, the book was of very little help. And finally, since McKinley was one of only four presidents who were assassinated in office, I wanted to better understand the assassination, which Philips barely even mentions, except to complain that, by unwisely getting assassinated, McKinley caused future historians to underestimate his accomplishments.
And then there is a whole chapter on how Teddy Roosevelt should be seen as an extension of McKinley's policies rather than as someone who had his own ideas about things.
So I feel like I have a pretty good sense of Kevin Phillips--his ideology, his political concerns, his view of history, and his homes and dreams. But I don't feel that I have the same understanding of William McKinley. And that is shame, as the little that Phillips actually has to say about him makes him seem like a really interesting fellow.
August 7, 2019
William McKinley is the twenty-fourth book in The American Presidents series – a biographical series chronicling the Presidents of the United States. Kevin Phillips wrote this particular installment and edited by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
William McKinley Jr. was the twenty-fifth President of the United States, serving from March 4, 1897, until his assassination six months into his second term. During his presidency, McKinley led the nation to victory in the Spanish-American War, raised protective tariffs to promote American industry and kept the nation on the gold standard in a rejection of free silver.
McKinley emerges as a strong Ohio governor and decisive president whose stern mien hid a thoughtful, even gentle, side. A Civil War veteran and Lincoln Republican, he presided over the emergence of the United States as a world power in the Spanish-American War, and his election in 1896 ushered in roughly forty years of Republican political dominance.
However, it's a bit far-fetched to present McKinley as a "tribune of the people," who should get credit for many of the more progressive policies pursued by his successor, Theodore Roosevelt. What's more, the strained, clotted words that occasionally interrupt otherwise lively prose suggest too hasty writing and editing.
Unlike authors of other volumes in this series, Phillips wastes space telling us what other historians have written about McKinley and arguing with many of them. However, one can't fail to come away from this book with deeper knowledge of a critical moment in American governance.
All in all, William McKinley is a somewhat good, albeit brief biography of the twenty-fifth president and it is a somewhat good continuation to what would hopefully be a wonderful series of presidential biographies, which I plan to read in the very near future.
William McKinley Jr. was the twenty-fifth President of the United States, serving from March 4, 1897, until his assassination six months into his second term. During his presidency, McKinley led the nation to victory in the Spanish-American War, raised protective tariffs to promote American industry and kept the nation on the gold standard in a rejection of free silver.
McKinley emerges as a strong Ohio governor and decisive president whose stern mien hid a thoughtful, even gentle, side. A Civil War veteran and Lincoln Republican, he presided over the emergence of the United States as a world power in the Spanish-American War, and his election in 1896 ushered in roughly forty years of Republican political dominance.
However, it's a bit far-fetched to present McKinley as a "tribune of the people," who should get credit for many of the more progressive policies pursued by his successor, Theodore Roosevelt. What's more, the strained, clotted words that occasionally interrupt otherwise lively prose suggest too hasty writing and editing.
Unlike authors of other volumes in this series, Phillips wastes space telling us what other historians have written about McKinley and arguing with many of them. However, one can't fail to come away from this book with deeper knowledge of a critical moment in American governance.
All in all, William McKinley is a somewhat good, albeit brief biography of the twenty-fifth president and it is a somewhat good continuation to what would hopefully be a wonderful series of presidential biographies, which I plan to read in the very near future.
June 23, 2020
If you're looking for a narrative of William McKinley's life, skip this book; the author has jumbled the timeline, providing the name of McKinley's birthplace (Niles, OH) halfway through a description of his childhood, and not even bothering to mention his assassin (Leon Czoglosz). But if you enjoy extended digressions on bimetalism, borderline racist theories about ethnicity and voting patterns, exhortations of Ohio as the heartland of American innovation, and anti-Roosevelt (Teddy, that is) invective . . . you will love this biography.
June 29, 2021
This audiobook was a quick listen, but was a strong case for McKinley as an underrated and one of our greater presidents whose life was cut short by his assassin. Phillips shows McKinley correctly as a kind, religious (he was Methodist) man who was faithful to his wife, yet was politically deft in his rise to the U.S. presidency. McKinley's reputation is on the rise...
December 2, 2024
I've read 25 presidential biographies thus far and this was one of my least favorite. It was dry and pedantic. The biographer seemed to overemphasize the point he wished to prove.
July 26, 2023
2/5⭐️/👁️/ This book is not very long and it took me over a month to complete. It is a thorough look at McKinley’s policy and accomplishments during his 4 1/2 year tenure. McKinley, unfortunately, is an under rated president. This book covers nothing about what made the man. I like to have a dose of both. This book focuses solely on the politics. While I prefer language to be precise, the author really went overboard, using rare words. (71/110) #readlist2023
November 24, 2012
Interesting thesis in this biography of William McKinley by Kevin Phillips. The thesis is that McKinley was an underrated President both in terms of his effectiveness and in his progressivism. Phillips argues that McKinley set the stage for much of Theodore Roosevelt's accomplishments by his building of the Republican coalition and by building the base of Progressive principles and that his reputation has suffered by the eclipse of Theodore Roosevelt and the focus of his 1896 campaign against William Jennings Bryan
While in Ohio politics McKinley supported women's suffrage, far before other national leaders and was more sympathetic to rights of African Americans. When he traveled he would meet African American leaders and if he found out that the hotel he was staying at would not allow Blacks, McKinley would move out of that hotel--As Governor he ordered Ohio guard to protect an African American from lynching even though the guard eventually had to shoot and kill two of the would be lynchers--it is hard to imagine Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson doing such a thing, their later record contradicted it.
But Phillips focuses on the economic progressivism. He notes that while in Ohio he turned down many appointments to corporate boards that offered much compensation for little work as well as turning down much work as corporate lawyer in disputes against labor unions--McKinley did defend some striking miners pro bono because he felt they had been treated unfairly by a combined corporate/government coalition. Phillips shows McKinley's economic policies as Governor and then as President--one of the last paragraphs of the book sums up his thesis well
"There is the hidden McKinley, the egalitarian who ran with the Grangers and supported Women's Rights, the "people's candidate" who beat the Eastern bosses, the man who wouldn't have a lobbyist in his cabinet, the cautious reformer who was on the verge of leading the fight to curb the trusts, reform the tariff system and reenact the progressive income tax"
While in Ohio politics McKinley supported women's suffrage, far before other national leaders and was more sympathetic to rights of African Americans. When he traveled he would meet African American leaders and if he found out that the hotel he was staying at would not allow Blacks, McKinley would move out of that hotel--As Governor he ordered Ohio guard to protect an African American from lynching even though the guard eventually had to shoot and kill two of the would be lynchers--it is hard to imagine Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson doing such a thing, their later record contradicted it.
But Phillips focuses on the economic progressivism. He notes that while in Ohio he turned down many appointments to corporate boards that offered much compensation for little work as well as turning down much work as corporate lawyer in disputes against labor unions--McKinley did defend some striking miners pro bono because he felt they had been treated unfairly by a combined corporate/government coalition. Phillips shows McKinley's economic policies as Governor and then as President--one of the last paragraphs of the book sums up his thesis well
"There is the hidden McKinley, the egalitarian who ran with the Grangers and supported Women's Rights, the "people's candidate" who beat the Eastern bosses, the man who wouldn't have a lobbyist in his cabinet, the cautious reformer who was on the verge of leading the fight to curb the trusts, reform the tariff system and reenact the progressive income tax"
June 30, 2021
Phillips’ project with this short biography of McKinley had more to do with redeeming his legacy than giving a deep insight into the man and his character. That doesn’t make it bad though. Phillips assesses that most people remember McKinley for being the guy who was dragged into the Spanish-American War and being the less successful, less skilled predecessor to Theodore Roosevelt, and then he got assassinated. I agree that this is how most people see McKinley, because this is is how I saw him before reading this book. Phillips did a good job of convincing me otherwise, but I think his focus of redeeming McKinley’s legacy distracted him from giving a life account.
So McKinley has certainly been given a raw deal by history. This is because he is followed by one of the popularly agreed upon greats of the presidential office: TR. I still think there is something to this, TR was such a unique personality it would be hard to convince me that the majority of his early term success was due to McKinley which is what Phillips claims. That being said, McKinley’s move towards progressivism and bimetallism, and especially his talks with both black leaders and labor leaders show clear influence of his thinking upon his successors. Roosevelt is usually the one who gets the sole credit for all of these things, but that clearly isn’t the case. So I appreciate this biography for bringing these things to my attention.
Where this book was lacking was in the bio part of biography. I learned a lot about McKinley’s time in office, but only got brief glimpses of his life outside of politics and before them. I was especially shocked at no inclusion of anything to do with his assassination besides a side mention of it here or there. Pretty major moment, so it’s exclusion was odd.
Overall, good book on McKinley and helped to modify my view of his legacy quite a bit.
So McKinley has certainly been given a raw deal by history. This is because he is followed by one of the popularly agreed upon greats of the presidential office: TR. I still think there is something to this, TR was such a unique personality it would be hard to convince me that the majority of his early term success was due to McKinley which is what Phillips claims. That being said, McKinley’s move towards progressivism and bimetallism, and especially his talks with both black leaders and labor leaders show clear influence of his thinking upon his successors. Roosevelt is usually the one who gets the sole credit for all of these things, but that clearly isn’t the case. So I appreciate this biography for bringing these things to my attention.
Where this book was lacking was in the bio part of biography. I learned a lot about McKinley’s time in office, but only got brief glimpses of his life outside of politics and before them. I was especially shocked at no inclusion of anything to do with his assassination besides a side mention of it here or there. Pretty major moment, so it’s exclusion was odd.
Overall, good book on McKinley and helped to modify my view of his legacy quite a bit.
September 17, 2015
I read this book because somewhere I read that Karl Rove found MicKinley's political machine to be of great value, in basing the George W Bush campaign of 2000 against Al Gore... Instead of finding a president who I thought kowtowed to East coast bankers and industry leaders, I found an extremely idealistic man who lived well. He was respectful of others, and let them run their energies against him, rather than carrying a big stick. His policies showed that he fought for the common worker, and that he utilized government for middle class values, values of freedom and liberation rather than corporate or governing dominance.
I did appreciate his analysis of how Teddy Roosevelt's presidency built off of McKinley's and how McKinley was able to win against William Jennings Bryan while ducking the leadership of the Republican party and the corporate NorthEasterners who might otherwise have politically hampered his ability to act on his ideals.
Likewise McKinley was shown to be a soft spoken but cautious politician who was able to carve a path for the important role the US was to play in the 20th century. I would have liked to know more about his personal life, but I guess because he didn't keep notes or letters, that might have been difficult.
Phillip's writing is clear. He presents political analysis with an eye on past trends and future events in a way that seems unencumbered. I enjoyed reading it. I think what Phillips is best able to do is understand the different points of view of different social bodies, and show how they saw what they saw based on what their interests were. That's about as objective as anyone can get.
I did appreciate his analysis of how Teddy Roosevelt's presidency built off of McKinley's and how McKinley was able to win against William Jennings Bryan while ducking the leadership of the Republican party and the corporate NorthEasterners who might otherwise have politically hampered his ability to act on his ideals.
Likewise McKinley was shown to be a soft spoken but cautious politician who was able to carve a path for the important role the US was to play in the 20th century. I would have liked to know more about his personal life, but I guess because he didn't keep notes or letters, that might have been difficult.
Phillip's writing is clear. He presents political analysis with an eye on past trends and future events in a way that seems unencumbered. I enjoyed reading it. I think what Phillips is best able to do is understand the different points of view of different social bodies, and show how they saw what they saw based on what their interests were. That's about as objective as anyone can get.
April 15, 2015
I have learned that I need to be more selective of the authors I choose for these Presidential Bios. I just finished Kevin Phillips' bio of McKinley. Its a fully researched, detailed bio that is mind numbingly boring. Detail after excruciating detail of tariff wars and imperialism. I got no sense of the man or the motivations behind his actions. 75% of the way thru I caught myself thinking "My God, when will someone kill him?". And in the end, Phillips never really covered the assassination of this president or the reasons behind it. WHAT?! The only personal info was about him being an amazing husband in response to his wife's epilepsy. No depth into the the death of his children or shaping influences in his life. Phillips provides no context and takes a weird tone of portraying McKinley as a whining older brother who keeps complaining about his younger, more popular brother (Teddy Roosevelt). He wrote over and over how Teddy Roosevelt wasn't really that great because he got all of his ideas from McKinley and just followed his plans. Whine, whine, whine. Phillips is NOT a writer like Kerns-Goodwin or McCullough or Vowell (well, no one equals Sarah Vowell) who bring history alive. Books like this, tho informative, are the reason people hate history.
April 11, 2012
Phillips validates an argument that in the big history book, William McKinley has wrongly been relegated to barely a footnote and deserves more credit than he's ever been given as a modern politician, world statesman, and economist. For want of a nail, the horse was lost - for want of McKinley, the far more publicity friendly and gargantuan Theodore Roosevelt would have been that footnote. The Roosevelt administration was a continuation of what McKinley had begun to wrought. Phillips spent some very interesting chapters outlining why McKinley deserves more praise; the chapter on his electioneering prowess made him sound positively modern. He might have been astonished at Ipods and Kardashians, but William McKinley would probably have felt very much at home in our modern politicking (minus, I think, the attack ads - although who knows). The assassination - about which a whole book was written regarding Garfield - was barely mentioned; this was decidedly a political sketch. One of the best books I've read so far in this series.
January 2, 2010
With all the books out about Lincoln, it was a welcome respite to learn about a different 19th century Republican president. This was a very well-researched, thoughtout book about a president who was actually quite progressive and popular in his time, much more so than what has come down to us through the many Theodore Roosevelt bios. A transitional president in many ways from the 19th to 20th century, when the US's position in the world and the role of the presidency changed. In fact many of the policies Roosevelt championed and got credit for were initiated in the McKinley administration. After reading this book I remain curious about his more personal experiences, especially from the civil war and in his relationship with his wife who suffered from epilepsy.
August 30, 2014
I did not like the organization of this book. It was not a chronological description, but rather an analysis. I appreciate that all the books have a big picture argument. Here, Phillips argues that McKinley layed the groundwork for early 20th century America, including an increased role on the global stage as a significant power. But McKinley's life is used to support that argument by discussing his life in non-chronological categories, which made it confusing fir a teddy unfamiliar with that era and president. However, the author did make his point effectively. I would not call this a biography.
March 3, 2024
This isn't your typical biography. Most biographies try and take an unbiased look at someone's life. This book, which covers McKinley's adult life, fairly decently, takes a thesis (that McKinley was more progressive than he's cracked on to be), and builds an argument from that.
Does it succeed? Yes probably, I don't know much about McKinley, and I'm left viewing him as a man who might have been more progressive than he might have originally been presented. This said, the book was so transparently a thesis argument, rather than a piece of balanced journalism, that I'm probably going to need to read a couple more books to be absolutely sure.
Does it succeed? Yes probably, I don't know much about McKinley, and I'm left viewing him as a man who might have been more progressive than he might have originally been presented. This said, the book was so transparently a thesis argument, rather than a piece of balanced journalism, that I'm probably going to need to read a couple more books to be absolutely sure.
June 15, 2009
This was a book on tape. McKinley is often overshadowed by T. Roosevelt, but shaped the direction that the country and the Republican party was headed in when he was assassinated. A man who even his critics admired for the loving care he gave to his epileptic wife, he was a behind the scenes consensus builder. This made it easy to overlook his accomplishments or to caricature him as a tool of his associates. The only negative was that it gave short shrift to the assassination and its immediate impact. McKinley was a very popular president at the time he was killed.
August 4, 2016
Expected a biography, like the others in this series. Instead, got a treatise on tariffs and economic policy in the late 1800's. Doesn't even mention the name of his assassin or the events surrounding. No mention of his kids, little discussion of his Civil War service. Now reading William McKinley and his America. Much longer book but already learned more facts about his life in first 50 pages.
August 16, 2014
While McKinley is one of my favorite presidents, I should have been worried that this biography was only 150 pages. As one of the few American presidents to be assassinated, you'd think the author would go into that. Nope. Also, the book was arranged by topic, not chronologically, which is always something that annoys me. The book was too over the top in favor of him, but I did learn more about him at least.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 115 reviews