What do you think?
Rate this book
American Presidential Elections
Four Hats in the Ring: The 1912 Election and the Birth of Modern American Politics
Imagine a presidential election with four well-qualified and distinguished candidates and a serious debate over the future of the nation! Sound impossible in this era of attack ads and strident partisanship? It happened nearly a century ago in 1912, when incumbent Republican William Howard Taft, former president Theodore Roosevelt running as the Progressive Party candidate, Democratic nominee Woodrow Wilson, and Socialist candidate Eugene V. Debs all spoke to major concerns of the American people and changed the landscape of national politics in the bargain.
The presidential election of 1912 saw a third-party candidate finish second in both popular and electoral votes. The Socialist candidate received the highest percentage of the popular vote his party ever attained. In addition to year-round campaigning in the modern style, the 1912 contest featured a broader role for women, two exciting national conventions, and an assassination attempt on Roosevelt’s life. The election defined the major parties for generations to come as the Taft-Roosevelt split pushed the Republicans to the right and the Democrats’ agenda of reform set them on the road to the New Deal.
Lewis L. Gould, one of America’s preeminent political historians, tells the story of this dramatic race and explains its enduring significance. Basing his narrative on the original letters and documents of the candidates themselves, he guides his readers down the campaign trail through the factional splits, exciting primaries, tumultuous conventions and the turbulent fall campaign to Wilson’s landslide electoral vote victory in November.
It’s all here—Gene Debs’s challenge to capitalism, the progressive rivalry of Roosevelt and Robert La Follette, the debate between the New Freedom of Wilson and the New Nationalism of Roosevelt, and the resolve of Taft to defeat his one-time friend TR and keep the Republican Party in conservative hands. Gould combines lively anecdotes, the poetry and prose of the campaign, and insights into the clash of ideology and personality to craft a narrative that moves as fast as did the 1912 election itself.
Americans sensed in 1912 that they stood at a turning point in the nation’s history. Four Hats in the Ring demonstrates why the people who lived and fought this significant election were more right than they could ever have known.
The presidential election of 1912 saw a third-party candidate finish second in both popular and electoral votes. The Socialist candidate received the highest percentage of the popular vote his party ever attained. In addition to year-round campaigning in the modern style, the 1912 contest featured a broader role for women, two exciting national conventions, and an assassination attempt on Roosevelt’s life. The election defined the major parties for generations to come as the Taft-Roosevelt split pushed the Republicans to the right and the Democrats’ agenda of reform set them on the road to the New Deal.
Lewis L. Gould, one of America’s preeminent political historians, tells the story of this dramatic race and explains its enduring significance. Basing his narrative on the original letters and documents of the candidates themselves, he guides his readers down the campaign trail through the factional splits, exciting primaries, tumultuous conventions and the turbulent fall campaign to Wilson’s landslide electoral vote victory in November.
It’s all here—Gene Debs’s challenge to capitalism, the progressive rivalry of Roosevelt and Robert La Follette, the debate between the New Freedom of Wilson and the New Nationalism of Roosevelt, and the resolve of Taft to defeat his one-time friend TR and keep the Republican Party in conservative hands. Gould combines lively anecdotes, the poetry and prose of the campaign, and insights into the clash of ideology and personality to craft a narrative that moves as fast as did the 1912 election itself.
Americans sensed in 1912 that they stood at a turning point in the nation’s history. Four Hats in the Ring demonstrates why the people who lived and fought this significant election were more right than they could ever have known.
254 pages, Hardcover
First published April 9, 2008
4 people are currently reading
178 people want to read
About the author
Lewis L. Gould
59 books13 followersLewis L. Gould is Eugene C. Barker Professor Emeritus in American History at the University of Texas in Austin. Gould earned an A.B. from Brown University in 1961, and an M.A. (1962) and Ph.D. (1966) from Yale University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
April 17, 2021
Which was the first modern presidential election in American history? It’s a question the answer to which depends on how you define the elements that make an election “modern.” Is it with the establishment of the present bi-polar party system in 1860? Or is it with the introduction of television in 1952 and the increasing personalization of presidential campaigns that it brought?
In this book Lewis Gould makes the case for regarding the 1912 presidential election as the one most deserving of the title. For Gould, the election that year deserves this distinction for a number of key factors, including its incorporation of presidential primaries into the selection process, the year-long campaigning in which the candidates engaged, the growing role of the media, and the shift from voter mobilization to voter education as the main focus of the campaigns. These are all valid and significant points, yet Gould undermines his argument somewhat by noting the transitional nature of these elements: for example, while presidential primaries received considerable attention, in the end the candidates were at the party conventions in much the same way as they had been over the previous eight decades. Conversely, media influence was hardly new to presidential campaigns, and the growing competition of sports and lurid criminal trials that Gould describes arguably diminished their influence on the contest rather than enhanced it.
While these factors might point to viewing the 1912 presidential contest as embodying transitions taking place rather than being a fully modern one in its own right, it was no less remarkable for it. In 1912 American voters faced a unique range of choices thanks to a series of developments that Gould describes. He traces the beginnings of these developments to the presidential election of 1908, in which Theodore Roosevelt’s handpicked nominee, William Howard Taft, won a comfortable victory over perennial Democratic contender William Jennings Bryan. Roosevelt had selected Taft in the belief that he shared Roosevelt’s views on political issues. Yet Taft soon demonstrated otherwise, and his handling of such matters as antitrust cases and the controversy surrounding the Ballinger-Pinchot affair increasingly soured Roosevelt on Taft’s conduct in office.
The growing dissension among Republicans gave Democrats an opportunity they were eager to take. Having lost the last four presidential elections, the Democrats were hungry for victory. While Champ Clark, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, was regarded as the front runner. Many Democrats looked to the newly elected governor of New Jersey, Woodrow Wilson, as the man best able to win the White House. Though long regarded as a conservative, Wilson’s embrace of progressive reforms enhanced his image as a broadly appealing candidate around whom the entire party could unite while the Republican Party fractured.
This fracture came when the Republicans gathered to decide their nominee. Gould’s description of the Republican primary is among the best parts of the book, as he offers a convincing explanation of the factors that led to the split. Foremost among them was Roosevelt himself, who though a beloved former president and national celebrity was out of touch with many political elements. While he dithered on whether to challenge Taft the president’s secretary, Charles Hilles, laid the groundwork for Taft to claim the nomination at the convention. Complicating everything was Robert La Follette, the Wisconsin senator who sought the presidency for himself. Even after Roosevelt announced his candidacy in February La Follette refused to withdraw, splitting the party’s progressives and paving the way for Taft’s forces to dominate the party’s convention.
As Gould makes clear, though, Taft knew that he stood no chance of winning a second term. Though his reelection was doomed the moment the progressive faction walked out of the convention, Gould makes the case that even if Roosevelt had not mounted a third-party candidacy Wilson would likely have won in 1912, as the split only laid bare the growing tension that already existed between the conservative and progressive wings of the GOP. Instead American voters that year were given a range of candidates distinguished by real ideological differences, ranging from Taft’s conservatism, Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism,” Wilson’s “New Freedom,” and the Socialist policies advocated by Eugene Debs. Yet the debate over the contrasting choices did little to alter the outcome, which Gould sees as ultimately decided by Democratic unity in the face of Republican division.
In his preface to the book Gould notes that his is hardly the first account of the momentous 1912 election. It is easily the best so far, though, thanks to the author’s prodigious knowledge about the era and the depth of his research. His examination of the role of women in the presidential campaigns and how African Americans responded to the lamentable options open to them is especially valuable for the broader perspective Gould brings to his examination of voters’ responses. Though his prose is more workmanlike than engaging and his book suffers from an annoying degree of repetition, it is nonetheless the best work available about a fascinating presidential contest, and one that everyone interested in it should read.
In this book Lewis Gould makes the case for regarding the 1912 presidential election as the one most deserving of the title. For Gould, the election that year deserves this distinction for a number of key factors, including its incorporation of presidential primaries into the selection process, the year-long campaigning in which the candidates engaged, the growing role of the media, and the shift from voter mobilization to voter education as the main focus of the campaigns. These are all valid and significant points, yet Gould undermines his argument somewhat by noting the transitional nature of these elements: for example, while presidential primaries received considerable attention, in the end the candidates were at the party conventions in much the same way as they had been over the previous eight decades. Conversely, media influence was hardly new to presidential campaigns, and the growing competition of sports and lurid criminal trials that Gould describes arguably diminished their influence on the contest rather than enhanced it.
While these factors might point to viewing the 1912 presidential contest as embodying transitions taking place rather than being a fully modern one in its own right, it was no less remarkable for it. In 1912 American voters faced a unique range of choices thanks to a series of developments that Gould describes. He traces the beginnings of these developments to the presidential election of 1908, in which Theodore Roosevelt’s handpicked nominee, William Howard Taft, won a comfortable victory over perennial Democratic contender William Jennings Bryan. Roosevelt had selected Taft in the belief that he shared Roosevelt’s views on political issues. Yet Taft soon demonstrated otherwise, and his handling of such matters as antitrust cases and the controversy surrounding the Ballinger-Pinchot affair increasingly soured Roosevelt on Taft’s conduct in office.
The growing dissension among Republicans gave Democrats an opportunity they were eager to take. Having lost the last four presidential elections, the Democrats were hungry for victory. While Champ Clark, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, was regarded as the front runner. Many Democrats looked to the newly elected governor of New Jersey, Woodrow Wilson, as the man best able to win the White House. Though long regarded as a conservative, Wilson’s embrace of progressive reforms enhanced his image as a broadly appealing candidate around whom the entire party could unite while the Republican Party fractured.
This fracture came when the Republicans gathered to decide their nominee. Gould’s description of the Republican primary is among the best parts of the book, as he offers a convincing explanation of the factors that led to the split. Foremost among them was Roosevelt himself, who though a beloved former president and national celebrity was out of touch with many political elements. While he dithered on whether to challenge Taft the president’s secretary, Charles Hilles, laid the groundwork for Taft to claim the nomination at the convention. Complicating everything was Robert La Follette, the Wisconsin senator who sought the presidency for himself. Even after Roosevelt announced his candidacy in February La Follette refused to withdraw, splitting the party’s progressives and paving the way for Taft’s forces to dominate the party’s convention.
As Gould makes clear, though, Taft knew that he stood no chance of winning a second term. Though his reelection was doomed the moment the progressive faction walked out of the convention, Gould makes the case that even if Roosevelt had not mounted a third-party candidacy Wilson would likely have won in 1912, as the split only laid bare the growing tension that already existed between the conservative and progressive wings of the GOP. Instead American voters that year were given a range of candidates distinguished by real ideological differences, ranging from Taft’s conservatism, Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism,” Wilson’s “New Freedom,” and the Socialist policies advocated by Eugene Debs. Yet the debate over the contrasting choices did little to alter the outcome, which Gould sees as ultimately decided by Democratic unity in the face of Republican division.
In his preface to the book Gould notes that his is hardly the first account of the momentous 1912 election. It is easily the best so far, though, thanks to the author’s prodigious knowledge about the era and the depth of his research. His examination of the role of women in the presidential campaigns and how African Americans responded to the lamentable options open to them is especially valuable for the broader perspective Gould brings to his examination of voters’ responses. Though his prose is more workmanlike than engaging and his book suffers from an annoying degree of repetition, it is nonetheless the best work available about a fascinating presidential contest, and one that everyone interested in it should read.
March 4, 2025
Read for HIST 406:
This book is going to be DNF FOR NOW. This book is not a bad book by any means, it is just that we are already past the midterm and she was supposed to be done by now...
This is me saying that I miss Dr. Martin's set up of classes where you have CHAPTERS to read for every class rather than having one day to discuss and entire book.
CHAD MARTIN IF YOU CAN HEAR ME PLEASE COME BACK FROM SUBATTICAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This book is going to be DNF FOR NOW. This book is not a bad book by any means, it is just that we are already past the midterm and she was supposed to be done by now...
This is me saying that I miss Dr. Martin's set up of classes where you have CHAPTERS to read for every class rather than having one day to discuss and entire book.
CHAD MARTIN IF YOU CAN HEAR ME PLEASE COME BACK FROM SUBATTICAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
September 6, 2015
Very interesting coverage of an important election. The rabid partisanship among supporters that underscored the distracted indifference of so many voters sounds quite familiar. The divisions within the GOP are even more fascinating in the context of the GOP primaries since 1964 and the recent split between libertarian Republicans and traditional conservatives in the party. TR and Debs would be supporting Senator Bernie Sanders most likely. The downfall of this book is that it points to how the 1912 contest reformulated nominee selection and presidential elections without providing examples of how things developed down the line. There is just a brief wrap-up on what happened to the four candidates and their chief intra-party opponents. The irony is that the big loser in 1912, Taft, ended up the best by being appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court nine years later, a dream come true for him and keeping him alive in trivia for being the only president to ever serve on the Supreme Court (as well as the heaviest president).
February 18, 2019
All in all, if you want a good but short account of the 1912 election, this book is for you.
Gould makes a few odd remarks. He twice states that Taft''s absence from the California ballot ensured that TR would carry the state even without Hiram Johnson as his running mate, though his plurality of only 174 (out of some 600,000 votes cast) makes it clear enough that his win there was far from assured. But that's a nitpick. The book contains much interesting and useful information, notably the results of the Democratic Primaries, which are often overshadowed by all the sound and fury on the Republican side, though more was probably at stake in the Democratic races.
Gould brings up some aspects of 1912 which are often overlooked, in particular that it aroused far more passion among political activists on all sides than among the public at large. Not only was turnout sharply down in percentage terms (58.8 as against 65.5 in 1908)' but only the fact that half a dozen states had doubled their electorates by granting women the vote would prevent the absolute numbers from also going down. There was also a remarkable discrepancy between the presidential and congressional votes. Of the 19.5 million who took part, no less than 4.5 million - almost one in four - ignored the Presidential race and were content to just vote for or against their local congressman.
He also brings over vividly just what a long shot Roosevelt's insurgency was, and questions the common assumption that had he won the nomination he would have gone on to win in November. Indeed, the amount of time TR spent down South, in pursuit of (white) votes there suggests that he himself was rather clutching at straws. It is sad that Roosevelt (hitherto probably the most racially liberal of the three main contenders, should have kept the Progressive Party 'lily-white' in vain pursuit of Southern support. For all the good it did him, he might as well have stuck to his principles. At times (and like one or two contemporaries) I find myself wondering whether he was entirely sane in 1912.
My only real annoyance is Gould's somewhat disparaging attitude to Champ Clark, saying that his corny image was off-putting to Eastern Democrats ' though his two to one win in the Massachusetts primary casts sizeable doubt on this, and his even bigger win in CA suggests that Progressive Dems were quite ok with him. Later on it is suggested that Clark would have been inadequate for the challenges of domestic reform and WW1, though on the first point he was well-liked by congressional colleagues, so would probably have got as many progressive measures through as Wilson did. As for WW1, how well did Wilson do? After failing successively to keep out of war and to bring home a peace treaty acceptable to the Senate, he left his party in an utter shambles, to the point where it suffered near-annihilation (outside the South) in 1920, and remained in eclipse until resurrected by the Wall Street Crash. Could a Clark Administration have done any worse?
Nor am I totally convinced that 1912 'marked 'the birth of modern American politics.' From what I can see, the Democrats had been established as the more liberal of the two parties since at least 1896, and the debacles of 1904 and 1924 clearly demonstrated that they had no future anywhere else. Outside the South, conservative Dems had nowhere to go except into the Republican Party. All 1912 really did was reveal the degree to which this had already happened, beyond the power of even a man of Roosevelt's stature to reverse. But it was a vivid marker, and surely destined to continue as one of the most written-about elections in American history. It will stand another look.
One final point. I couldn't resist a smile about the fulsome praise for Germany by both Roosevelt and Wilson. She was highly regarded for her social benefits and the treatment of her workers, and generally viewed as an excellent example to us all. Not quite what they were saying five years later. So it goes.
Gould makes a few odd remarks. He twice states that Taft''s absence from the California ballot ensured that TR would carry the state even without Hiram Johnson as his running mate, though his plurality of only 174 (out of some 600,000 votes cast) makes it clear enough that his win there was far from assured. But that's a nitpick. The book contains much interesting and useful information, notably the results of the Democratic Primaries, which are often overshadowed by all the sound and fury on the Republican side, though more was probably at stake in the Democratic races.
Gould brings up some aspects of 1912 which are often overlooked, in particular that it aroused far more passion among political activists on all sides than among the public at large. Not only was turnout sharply down in percentage terms (58.8 as against 65.5 in 1908)' but only the fact that half a dozen states had doubled their electorates by granting women the vote would prevent the absolute numbers from also going down. There was also a remarkable discrepancy between the presidential and congressional votes. Of the 19.5 million who took part, no less than 4.5 million - almost one in four - ignored the Presidential race and were content to just vote for or against their local congressman.
He also brings over vividly just what a long shot Roosevelt's insurgency was, and questions the common assumption that had he won the nomination he would have gone on to win in November. Indeed, the amount of time TR spent down South, in pursuit of (white) votes there suggests that he himself was rather clutching at straws. It is sad that Roosevelt (hitherto probably the most racially liberal of the three main contenders, should have kept the Progressive Party 'lily-white' in vain pursuit of Southern support. For all the good it did him, he might as well have stuck to his principles. At times (and like one or two contemporaries) I find myself wondering whether he was entirely sane in 1912.
My only real annoyance is Gould's somewhat disparaging attitude to Champ Clark, saying that his corny image was off-putting to Eastern Democrats ' though his two to one win in the Massachusetts primary casts sizeable doubt on this, and his even bigger win in CA suggests that Progressive Dems were quite ok with him. Later on it is suggested that Clark would have been inadequate for the challenges of domestic reform and WW1, though on the first point he was well-liked by congressional colleagues, so would probably have got as many progressive measures through as Wilson did. As for WW1, how well did Wilson do? After failing successively to keep out of war and to bring home a peace treaty acceptable to the Senate, he left his party in an utter shambles, to the point where it suffered near-annihilation (outside the South) in 1920, and remained in eclipse until resurrected by the Wall Street Crash. Could a Clark Administration have done any worse?
Nor am I totally convinced that 1912 'marked 'the birth of modern American politics.' From what I can see, the Democrats had been established as the more liberal of the two parties since at least 1896, and the debacles of 1904 and 1924 clearly demonstrated that they had no future anywhere else. Outside the South, conservative Dems had nowhere to go except into the Republican Party. All 1912 really did was reveal the degree to which this had already happened, beyond the power of even a man of Roosevelt's stature to reverse. But it was a vivid marker, and surely destined to continue as one of the most written-about elections in American history. It will stand another look.
One final point. I couldn't resist a smile about the fulsome praise for Germany by both Roosevelt and Wilson. She was highly regarded for her social benefits and the treatment of her workers, and generally viewed as an excellent example to us all. Not quite what they were saying five years later. So it goes.
February 21, 2025
While it's not at interesting as the title makes it out to be, Four Hats in the Ring reflects the tensions between four candidates that sought an office during a pivotal moment in US politics. The Republican party had kept a stronghold on the national government since the election of McKinley, so the 1912 election was crucial for the Republicans to win as a loss would show the weakness of the party. Unfortunately, ego and jealousy ruined Taft and Roosevelt, thus destroying the parties' chances of winning. I thought much of the direct commentary from both Taft and Roosevelt about the Republican Party and each other were very interesting and insightful. Compared to many other texts I have been required to read so far for my advanced history class, I would say argue that this has been the most dramatic of the bunch.
Despite my liking of the book, my main criticism is Gould's lack of the second half of the title. He talks about the four "hats" (Debs, Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson), but he never really talks about how this shaped Modern American politics. This was certainly not the first time politicians had petty drama with one another, so what was made this different from any other political battle? Sure, the rise of two third-parties was a change, but this doesn't happen in modern elections. The only argument I can see as plausible is Gould's belief that the Republican party's failure was inevitable as the Republican voter base would not vote for a ticket with both Progressive Roosevelt and Conservative Taft, as both had different plans for the future of the United States. As a result of this split, Gould could argue that this conservative dominance in the Republican party "birthed" modern politics, but this completely leaves out any major changes that occurred to the Democrat party between then and now. If anything, Gould's book only tells half of the birth of modern American politics, as it would take roughly another thirty years for the Democrat party to change into its modern form.
The book itself is not bad by any means, and I did enjoy this more than other books I have read on presidents, but I believe this book is missing some important details that could help flesh out his argument beyond the Republican Party's reshaping in the 20th century.
Despite my liking of the book, my main criticism is Gould's lack of the second half of the title. He talks about the four "hats" (Debs, Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson), but he never really talks about how this shaped Modern American politics. This was certainly not the first time politicians had petty drama with one another, so what was made this different from any other political battle? Sure, the rise of two third-parties was a change, but this doesn't happen in modern elections. The only argument I can see as plausible is Gould's belief that the Republican party's failure was inevitable as the Republican voter base would not vote for a ticket with both Progressive Roosevelt and Conservative Taft, as both had different plans for the future of the United States. As a result of this split, Gould could argue that this conservative dominance in the Republican party "birthed" modern politics, but this completely leaves out any major changes that occurred to the Democrat party between then and now. If anything, Gould's book only tells half of the birth of modern American politics, as it would take roughly another thirty years for the Democrat party to change into its modern form.
The book itself is not bad by any means, and I did enjoy this more than other books I have read on presidents, but I believe this book is missing some important details that could help flesh out his argument beyond the Republican Party's reshaping in the 20th century.
December 9, 2024
1912 is one of the most talked about Presidential elections in American history because of the battle of three Presidents past, present and future. The past President, Theodore Roosevelt, decided to challenge his own handpicked successor for the Republican party nomination and then ran one of the most effective third-party campaigns as the standard bearer of the Progressive Party. The present President, William Howard Taft, fought hard to secure re-nomination but chose to honor tradition by not campaigning in the fall in a year in which the Republican party struggled to attract support and financing. The future President, Woodrow Wilson, capitalized on his Progressive credentials as the Governor of New Jersey to outlast a pair of more conservative rivals for the Democratic nomination.
What truly separates Gould's book from previous studies of this election is his inclusion of analysis of the Socialist Party campaign of Eugene Debs that year which in the end would capture 6 percent of the vote, the best ever for that party. Gould examines the history of the Socialist Party, the party's divisions and tactics that kept it from greater success.
Gould also states that this was the last election in which the tariff played a large role as an issue and laid the groundwork for the primary system of the later 20th century for nominating Presidential candidates.
An excellent addition to the literature on this much studied election.
What truly separates Gould's book from previous studies of this election is his inclusion of analysis of the Socialist Party campaign of Eugene Debs that year which in the end would capture 6 percent of the vote, the best ever for that party. Gould examines the history of the Socialist Party, the party's divisions and tactics that kept it from greater success.
Gould also states that this was the last election in which the tariff played a large role as an issue and laid the groundwork for the primary system of the later 20th century for nominating Presidential candidates.
An excellent addition to the literature on this much studied election.
July 1, 2018
Personally, I thought Lewis Gould did a very poor job of presenting his points and writing his book. Even though his thesis is not completely lost, he seemed to be utterly disorganized in his presentation and in desperate need of further revisions and editing.
To begin, Gould largely neglects to lay out vital information before explaining the details associated with such information. For example, he wrote an in-depth narrative of the Democratic primaries and subsequent convention without presenting the main candidates to the reader upfront. He would simply mention names as he went along. Reading this was as confusing as watching a daytime soap opera where very important characters from the past randomly show up in the season finale to announce responsibility for the main character’s post-traumatic stress disorder. Similarly, for both the GOP and Democratic primaries and Conventions, he told a play-by-play of the states and delegates each candidate won without offering to the reader exactly the number of delegates needed to gain the nomination upfront. His play-by-play analysis of the candidates competing for delegates in each state would mean significantly more to me if I had the knowledge of the required delegate number beforehand. It was like watching a race without knowing whether the race was a marathon or a 100-meter dash.
Furthermore, Gould seems to not even be certain what ideas he wants to emphasize. For example, in a single page (page 93 of my edition), he claims William Jennings Bryan’s endorsement of Woodrow Wilson over Champ Clark “had little practical consequence for the convention.” Yet, further down that same page, Gould writes, “[Champ Clark] never forgave William Jennings Bryan for having frustrated his candidacy.” The contradiction is obvious; Bryan cannot have had “little practical consequence” while also “frustrat[ing] [the frontrunner’s] candidacy.” I understand that the latter claim is from the perception of Clark while the former is from the perception of the author. However, if the writer is going to share his perspective, then it is important to explain why said perspective differs from the perspectives of the first-hand accounts. This is only one of many instances.
A related criticism is the author’s layout and intent of the book. The title is “Four Hats in the Ring,” but ultimately, I must assume the title was no more than a clever allusion to a Theodore Roosevelt quote. The title makes no sense otherwise since the book spends large portions of time downplaying the role of Eugene V Debs and even of William Howard Taft. The book barely even mentions Debs outside of the chapter focused on the Socialist candidate while Taft is all but forgotten after chapter three (of seven). If I were to rename the book I would simply work with the author’s current subtitle, “The Birth of Modern American Politics: A history of the 1912 election.” After all, the author’s book, as stated by the Gould himself, is supposed to emphasize the emergence of modern political elements like campaigning during the primaries, female involvement, and the debate of progressive reforms that pre-date the New Deal.
The layout of the book is, also, confusing. The title of the first chapter includes the years 1909-1910, yet the author discusses years before and after the given time period about as often as the given time period. Similarly, chapter two is titled, “Prelude to the Presidential Race, 1911,” but the chapter is about far more than just events that happened in 1911. Also, I understand the author, after chapter two, was largely consolidating information into specific chapters by topic rather than chronologically (e.g., most of the Debs information was in the Debs chapter, most of the Woodrow Wilson nomination information was in the Democratic nomination focused chapter, etc.), but this method led to the introduction of seemingly important pieces of information later than I otherwise would have expected.
It really seemed like a lack of care was taken in the writing and editing of this book. Random information was wedged in that did not relate enough to the surrounding text. In one notable example (page 62), the author spends two paragraphs on the sinking of the Titanic. If these two paragraphs were omitted, then the page flows extremely well. Although correctly placed chronologically, with these paragraphs included, the reader is forced to feel like Alice following the White Rabbit down his hole to Wonderland. Why Gould felt the need to place those paragraphs on page 62 is unknown since Gould did not exhibit any particular commitment to chronological order in the rest of the book. Those paragraphs could have easily been moved to the beginning of the chapter where the author should have taken a moment to explain a few interesting external effects on the topic of the chapter (i.e., Roosevelt and Taft’s race for the Republican nomination). Also, to further emphasize the flaws in this professionally edited book, there were numerous typos throughout the book which did not help my perception of the book’s quality.
Although I believe the book’s disorganization muddled Gould’s thesis, his narrative was not completely lost. Obviously, he declared his intentions from the outset to characterize the election as an emerging modern one. The detailed primary races, though lacking in presentation quality, do resemble the competitive races seen in such elections as 2016 (e.g., Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton; Trump, Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio). He sufficiently proved the involvement of women in the election though naming specific women and women groups supporting each of the candidates. Also, even though tariffs and monopolies have not exactly been the hot-button issues of the last 25 years, the discussion of the welfare state by Roosevelt resembles the welfare state today. Not to mention, many of the direct democracy policies endorsed by the candidates (sans judicial recall) exist in nearly all states today.
All-in-all, the mentioned problems inhibits me from recommending this book to anybody, but it did have enough information and interesting hypotheses to be superior to Wikipedia articles on the subject.
To begin, Gould largely neglects to lay out vital information before explaining the details associated with such information. For example, he wrote an in-depth narrative of the Democratic primaries and subsequent convention without presenting the main candidates to the reader upfront. He would simply mention names as he went along. Reading this was as confusing as watching a daytime soap opera where very important characters from the past randomly show up in the season finale to announce responsibility for the main character’s post-traumatic stress disorder. Similarly, for both the GOP and Democratic primaries and Conventions, he told a play-by-play of the states and delegates each candidate won without offering to the reader exactly the number of delegates needed to gain the nomination upfront. His play-by-play analysis of the candidates competing for delegates in each state would mean significantly more to me if I had the knowledge of the required delegate number beforehand. It was like watching a race without knowing whether the race was a marathon or a 100-meter dash.
Furthermore, Gould seems to not even be certain what ideas he wants to emphasize. For example, in a single page (page 93 of my edition), he claims William Jennings Bryan’s endorsement of Woodrow Wilson over Champ Clark “had little practical consequence for the convention.” Yet, further down that same page, Gould writes, “[Champ Clark] never forgave William Jennings Bryan for having frustrated his candidacy.” The contradiction is obvious; Bryan cannot have had “little practical consequence” while also “frustrat[ing] [the frontrunner’s] candidacy.” I understand that the latter claim is from the perception of Clark while the former is from the perception of the author. However, if the writer is going to share his perspective, then it is important to explain why said perspective differs from the perspectives of the first-hand accounts. This is only one of many instances.
A related criticism is the author’s layout and intent of the book. The title is “Four Hats in the Ring,” but ultimately, I must assume the title was no more than a clever allusion to a Theodore Roosevelt quote. The title makes no sense otherwise since the book spends large portions of time downplaying the role of Eugene V Debs and even of William Howard Taft. The book barely even mentions Debs outside of the chapter focused on the Socialist candidate while Taft is all but forgotten after chapter three (of seven). If I were to rename the book I would simply work with the author’s current subtitle, “The Birth of Modern American Politics: A history of the 1912 election.” After all, the author’s book, as stated by the Gould himself, is supposed to emphasize the emergence of modern political elements like campaigning during the primaries, female involvement, and the debate of progressive reforms that pre-date the New Deal.
The layout of the book is, also, confusing. The title of the first chapter includes the years 1909-1910, yet the author discusses years before and after the given time period about as often as the given time period. Similarly, chapter two is titled, “Prelude to the Presidential Race, 1911,” but the chapter is about far more than just events that happened in 1911. Also, I understand the author, after chapter two, was largely consolidating information into specific chapters by topic rather than chronologically (e.g., most of the Debs information was in the Debs chapter, most of the Woodrow Wilson nomination information was in the Democratic nomination focused chapter, etc.), but this method led to the introduction of seemingly important pieces of information later than I otherwise would have expected.
It really seemed like a lack of care was taken in the writing and editing of this book. Random information was wedged in that did not relate enough to the surrounding text. In one notable example (page 62), the author spends two paragraphs on the sinking of the Titanic. If these two paragraphs were omitted, then the page flows extremely well. Although correctly placed chronologically, with these paragraphs included, the reader is forced to feel like Alice following the White Rabbit down his hole to Wonderland. Why Gould felt the need to place those paragraphs on page 62 is unknown since Gould did not exhibit any particular commitment to chronological order in the rest of the book. Those paragraphs could have easily been moved to the beginning of the chapter where the author should have taken a moment to explain a few interesting external effects on the topic of the chapter (i.e., Roosevelt and Taft’s race for the Republican nomination). Also, to further emphasize the flaws in this professionally edited book, there were numerous typos throughout the book which did not help my perception of the book’s quality.
Although I believe the book’s disorganization muddled Gould’s thesis, his narrative was not completely lost. Obviously, he declared his intentions from the outset to characterize the election as an emerging modern one. The detailed primary races, though lacking in presentation quality, do resemble the competitive races seen in such elections as 2016 (e.g., Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton; Trump, Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio). He sufficiently proved the involvement of women in the election though naming specific women and women groups supporting each of the candidates. Also, even though tariffs and monopolies have not exactly been the hot-button issues of the last 25 years, the discussion of the welfare state by Roosevelt resembles the welfare state today. Not to mention, many of the direct democracy policies endorsed by the candidates (sans judicial recall) exist in nearly all states today.
All-in-all, the mentioned problems inhibits me from recommending this book to anybody, but it did have enough information and interesting hypotheses to be superior to Wikipedia articles on the subject.
June 15, 2025
An interesting book about the four candidates that ran for the presidency in 1912. This memorable election saw the participation of the new Progressive Party that elected Teddy Roosevelt as its primary candidate. Known as the Bull Moose, Roosevelt fell out of favor with President Taft. The fourth candidate running-out the election was Eugene Debs. Individual vote-wise, he came in last. The election came on the heels of the Titanic disaster. All in all, an interesting book on a memorable election.
October 3, 2024
teddy roosevelt & taft love story when
January 4, 2017
Informative but by no means authoritative text on the 1912 election. Gould goes into a lot of detail about the backgrounds and processes of each of the four candidate's campaigns, but there is a lack of solid editing and a coherent narrative (reads like a dissertation that's been rearranged into book form). I think it works best as a way of introducing what happened in 1912 to someone already interested in the topic and planning to do more research later on.
March 20, 2015
This was a slow read for me. Gould manages in the title to excite and entice the reader; the title hints at the drama and controversy around the election of 1912, but the text of the book falls flat. There are flashes of interesting events, some good quotes that lend some insight into each of the four candidates, but Gould takes all the excitement and drama out of the contest. True, the election itself was a foregone conclusion for some, but the election itself changed how campaigns were organized and how they were run, and indeed changed HOW the candidates would present their cases to the general public. He mentions the importance of new media outlets, then fails to adequately identify how and why they were so important--few examples highlight the point.
Many times in the book I was moaning "Get on with it already!" because I wanted something to happen--I wanted Gould to show me something new or interesting in his analysis, but he does not. I can recommend this book only reluctantly, and only because there are some good quotes by each of the candidates that helped put the election in context for them.
Many times in the book I was moaning "Get on with it already!" because I wanted something to happen--I wanted Gould to show me something new or interesting in his analysis, but he does not. I can recommend this book only reluctantly, and only because there are some good quotes by each of the candidates that helped put the election in context for them.
September 12, 2014
Enjoyed this book on a very important time in American history. The first two "progressives" in the American political scene front and center in this election: T.R. and Wilson. Both evil in my mind since they wanted to move away from limited government to a central and powerful political state. As true with most periods of history there were no pure true heroes, but Taft comes across as the lessor of evils. The 1912 election was probably the last election where the tariff was an important issue.
February 15, 2016
A concise, enjoyable breakdown of the 1912 presidential elections where the U.S. really reaches a sort of fracture point between the traditional constitutional order and its various critics. Sometimes it seems to go out of its way to avoid fully relating certain unsavory facts re: the candidates, but overall a strong effort.
November 29, 2011
Gave it four stars because I like any book that tells the story of presidential elections. Thought it was a little dry at times and maybe gave too much voice to the Socialists. It also gave me more insight into the real Teddy who everybody loves but don't really know him.
August 7, 2012
One of the University of Kansas series on pivotal presidential election campaigns, one of that university press's area of specialization.
Fairly solid academic overview of the 1912 presidential campaign. Covers the insurgent candidacies of Teddy Roosevelt and Eugene Debs well.
December 8, 2009
Fairly conventional telling of a unique moment in American politics. Worth reading if this type of political history interests you.
Read
September 20, 2011IT SUCKED!!!!!
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews