What do you think?
Rate this book
The American Presidents #31
Herbert Hoover
The Republican efficiency expert whose economic boosterism met its match in the Great Depression
Catapulted into national politics by his heroic campaigns to feed Europe during and after World War I, Herbert Hoover—an engineer by training—exemplified the economic optimism of the 1920s. As president, however, Hoover was sorely tested by America's first crisis of the twentieth century: the Great Depression.
Renowned New Deal historian William E. Leuchtenburg demonstrates how Hoover was blinkered by his distrust of government and his belief that volunteerism would solve all social ills. As Leuchtenburg shows, Hoover's attempts to enlist the aid of private- sector leaders did little to mitigate the Depression, and he was routed from office by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932. From his retirement at Stanford University, Hoover remained a vocal critic of the New Deal and big government until the end of his long life.
Leuchtenburg offers a frank, thoughtful portrait of this lifelong public servant, and shrewdly assesses Hoover's policies and legacy in the face of one of the darkest periods of American history.
Catapulted into national politics by his heroic campaigns to feed Europe during and after World War I, Herbert Hoover—an engineer by training—exemplified the economic optimism of the 1920s. As president, however, Hoover was sorely tested by America's first crisis of the twentieth century: the Great Depression.
Renowned New Deal historian William E. Leuchtenburg demonstrates how Hoover was blinkered by his distrust of government and his belief that volunteerism would solve all social ills. As Leuchtenburg shows, Hoover's attempts to enlist the aid of private- sector leaders did little to mitigate the Depression, and he was routed from office by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932. From his retirement at Stanford University, Hoover remained a vocal critic of the New Deal and big government until the end of his long life.
Leuchtenburg offers a frank, thoughtful portrait of this lifelong public servant, and shrewdly assesses Hoover's policies and legacy in the face of one of the darkest periods of American history.
186 pages, Paperback
First published January 6, 2008
49 people are currently reading
833 people want to read
About the author
William E. Leuchtenburg
44 books30 followersWilliam Edward Leuchtenburg was an American historian who was the William Rand Kenan Jr. Professor of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a leading scholar of the life and career of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews
August 19, 2024
Herbert Hoover In The American Presidents Series
The American Presidents Series, edited by Arthur Schlesinger and Sean Wilentz, offers an excellent way to learn about American history, the presidents, and the qualities of successful or unsuccessful leadership. Each of the short volumes is written by scholar with particular interest in the subject. Although the volumes are short and readable, they are not mere summaries but rather offer their own insight into the president and era they discuss.
William Leuchtenburg's study of Herbert Hoover (1874 - 1964) is one of the best in the series. Hoover served a single term as the 31st president (1929 - 1933). He will forever be remembered as the president who presided over the Great Depression. Leuchtenburg offers a nicely-written, even-handed and insightful evaluation of a complex, difficult individual and of his many strengths and weaknesses. Leuchtenburg is professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has been awarded both the Bancroft and the Parkman Prizes and is a scholar of the New Deal era. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal: 1932-1940
Born to harsh circumstances in rural Iowa, Hoover was orphaned in 1884 at the age of ten. His youth was spent in a series of difficult, ill-paying jobs which suggested that the young man had little future ahead of him. Poorly educated but ambitious and intelligent, Hoover enrolled in and graduated from Stanford. While in his 20s, he drove himself and became a wealthy, successful mining engineer and financier who worked in Australia, China, and England, among other places. As a man, Hoover was dour and introverted. He became accustomed to having his own way with things.
At about the time he reached the age of 30, Hoover began to realize that there was more to life than making money. He became an author and something of a scholar, publishing a book called "Principles of Mining" in 1909 and "De Re Metallica" a translation from the Latin done in collaboration with his wife Lou, in 1912. Hoover became interested in public service.
Hoover became known as the "Great Humanitarian" for his efforts in delivering food to the starving multitudes of Europe during and after WW I. Leuchtenburg's book explores this part of Hoover's life and career in detail and gives him the praise for which he is due. During this time Hoover became committed to "voluntarism" in public affairs even though Hoover's relief efforts were overwhelmingly financed by the government and could not have succeeded without Federal action.
With the election of Harding to the presidency in 1920, Hoover became Secretary of Commerce. He served energetically and creatively in this capacity through the presidencies of Harding and Coolidge. His most widely-known activity in this role occurred in 1927 when he became responsible for the relief efforts for the victims of the Mississippi River flood, the first significant Federal relief effort for a natural disaster.
For all his accomplishments, Hoover will always be remembered for the Depression. Leuchtenburg takes a carefully critical view of Hoover's efforts. He finds that Hoover's withdrawn, cold, and uninspiring public figure, his difficulties in collaborating with others, and his apparent tendency to ignore the human element were not well-suited to combating the Depression. Most of Hoover's efforts centered around voluntarism and private action which proved insufficient and ill-suited to the crisis. Some of Hoover's efforts, such as supporting a high tariff and increased taxes, while undoubtedly well-meaning, were precisely the wrong courses of actions to take in resolving the crisis. Other actions were insufficient and were not followed-through. Hoover's aloofness during the Depression was also a source of major difficulty for his presidency. Thus, while admitting that Hoover had no role in causing the Depression and that his administration had certain bright spots, Leuchtenburg concludes that Hoover's presidency was a failure. A final chapter of the book discusses Hoover's long life following the presidency, and the attempts he made by his own lights to remain committed to a life of public service.
For all Hoover's faults, I came away from Leuchtenburg's book with a great deal of admiration for the man, his intelligence, his humanitarian achievements, and his early progressive tendencies. Hoover appears to me more sympathetic as a person than some of my fellow reviewers will allow. Leuchtenburg also makes a powerful case for the inadequacies of Hoover's presidency. He suggests how these inadequacies had their source in Hoover's own earlier accomplishments and in his narrowness of vision. The book concludes with an extensive biography for those readers wishing to explore Hoover's life in more detail. Leuchtenburg has written a thoughtful account of the life and accomplishments of Herbert Hoover.
Robin Friedman
The American Presidents Series, edited by Arthur Schlesinger and Sean Wilentz, offers an excellent way to learn about American history, the presidents, and the qualities of successful or unsuccessful leadership. Each of the short volumes is written by scholar with particular interest in the subject. Although the volumes are short and readable, they are not mere summaries but rather offer their own insight into the president and era they discuss.
William Leuchtenburg's study of Herbert Hoover (1874 - 1964) is one of the best in the series. Hoover served a single term as the 31st president (1929 - 1933). He will forever be remembered as the president who presided over the Great Depression. Leuchtenburg offers a nicely-written, even-handed and insightful evaluation of a complex, difficult individual and of his many strengths and weaknesses. Leuchtenburg is professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has been awarded both the Bancroft and the Parkman Prizes and is a scholar of the New Deal era. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal: 1932-1940
Born to harsh circumstances in rural Iowa, Hoover was orphaned in 1884 at the age of ten. His youth was spent in a series of difficult, ill-paying jobs which suggested that the young man had little future ahead of him. Poorly educated but ambitious and intelligent, Hoover enrolled in and graduated from Stanford. While in his 20s, he drove himself and became a wealthy, successful mining engineer and financier who worked in Australia, China, and England, among other places. As a man, Hoover was dour and introverted. He became accustomed to having his own way with things.
At about the time he reached the age of 30, Hoover began to realize that there was more to life than making money. He became an author and something of a scholar, publishing a book called "Principles of Mining" in 1909 and "De Re Metallica" a translation from the Latin done in collaboration with his wife Lou, in 1912. Hoover became interested in public service.
Hoover became known as the "Great Humanitarian" for his efforts in delivering food to the starving multitudes of Europe during and after WW I. Leuchtenburg's book explores this part of Hoover's life and career in detail and gives him the praise for which he is due. During this time Hoover became committed to "voluntarism" in public affairs even though Hoover's relief efforts were overwhelmingly financed by the government and could not have succeeded without Federal action.
With the election of Harding to the presidency in 1920, Hoover became Secretary of Commerce. He served energetically and creatively in this capacity through the presidencies of Harding and Coolidge. His most widely-known activity in this role occurred in 1927 when he became responsible for the relief efforts for the victims of the Mississippi River flood, the first significant Federal relief effort for a natural disaster.
For all his accomplishments, Hoover will always be remembered for the Depression. Leuchtenburg takes a carefully critical view of Hoover's efforts. He finds that Hoover's withdrawn, cold, and uninspiring public figure, his difficulties in collaborating with others, and his apparent tendency to ignore the human element were not well-suited to combating the Depression. Most of Hoover's efforts centered around voluntarism and private action which proved insufficient and ill-suited to the crisis. Some of Hoover's efforts, such as supporting a high tariff and increased taxes, while undoubtedly well-meaning, were precisely the wrong courses of actions to take in resolving the crisis. Other actions were insufficient and were not followed-through. Hoover's aloofness during the Depression was also a source of major difficulty for his presidency. Thus, while admitting that Hoover had no role in causing the Depression and that his administration had certain bright spots, Leuchtenburg concludes that Hoover's presidency was a failure. A final chapter of the book discusses Hoover's long life following the presidency, and the attempts he made by his own lights to remain committed to a life of public service.
For all Hoover's faults, I came away from Leuchtenburg's book with a great deal of admiration for the man, his intelligence, his humanitarian achievements, and his early progressive tendencies. Hoover appears to me more sympathetic as a person than some of my fellow reviewers will allow. Leuchtenburg also makes a powerful case for the inadequacies of Hoover's presidency. He suggests how these inadequacies had their source in Hoover's own earlier accomplishments and in his narrowness of vision. The book concludes with an extensive biography for those readers wishing to explore Hoover's life in more detail. Leuchtenburg has written a thoughtful account of the life and accomplishments of Herbert Hoover.
Robin Friedman
January 20, 2016
http://bestpresidentialbios.com/2016/...
Published in 2009, “Herbert Hoover” by William E. Leuchtenburg is a member of The American Presidents Series. Leuchtenburg is professor emeritus of history at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and the author of numerous books on 20th century history. His most recent book “The American President: From Teddy Roosevelt to Bill Clinton” was published in 2015.
Consistent with other books in this series, Leuchtenburg’s biography is concise, forthright and potent. With 161 pages of text, this review of Hoover’s life is extremely efficient, highly insightful and extremely well balanced. But despite the failed reputation of the book’s subject, it is quickly apparent that Hoover’s life (if not his political career) deserves every page which can be afforded.
The book’s earliest pages are filled with praise and admiration for Hoover’s fascinating early life and private-sector accomplishments. This is followed by a robust description and thoughtful critique of Hoover’s service in Washington including his response, as president, to the Great Depression. In the end, Leuchtenburg concludes that even without the burden of the Depression, Hoover’s legacy would be hampered by his rigid and uncharismatic style and his other political deficiencies.
But if the book’s efficiency is one of its compelling attributes, this brevity is also one of its greatest weaknesses. Hoover’s pre-presidency is enormously compelling: he endured an austere upbringing, hopscotched the world as a mining engineer and founded his own global firm. He led an effort during World War I to save much of Belgium from starvation, was appointed head of the U.S. Food Administration by Woodrow Wilson and later became Warren Harding’s Secretary of Commerce.
Unfortunately, the first forty years of his life are covered in fewer than two-dozen pages – and this is a period which could easily be the basis for a dramatic Candice Millard narrative such as “The River of Doubt: Theodore Roosevelt’s Darkest Journey.” Also missing in this biography are numerous details of his personal life; his wife and two sons hardly seem to exist.
Discussion of the 1928 Republican convention which nominated him for the presidency received just a single sentence. Coverage of his presidential campaign was unmemorable…and I can hardly recall mention of his Democratic challenger. Assembly of his Cabinet – something biographers often take great pleasure in analyzing and dissecting – took just a paragraph. But if his post-presidency was also covered too quickly, Hoover’s presidency itself was provided adequate space and excellent attention.
Overall, William Leuchtenburg’s biography of Herbert Hoover performs more than adequately in its role to comprehensively but not exhaustively cover the life of its subject. Although his coverage of Hoover’s life is not particularly colorful or vibrant, the author applies care and skill to his analysis of Hoover’s private and public careers. And if the greatest service a biography can perform is to educate on a basic level – and to inspire a more detailed subsequent exploration of a subject’s life – then this biography succeeds admirably.
Overall rating: 3½ stars
Published in 2009, “Herbert Hoover” by William E. Leuchtenburg is a member of The American Presidents Series. Leuchtenburg is professor emeritus of history at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and the author of numerous books on 20th century history. His most recent book “The American President: From Teddy Roosevelt to Bill Clinton” was published in 2015.
Consistent with other books in this series, Leuchtenburg’s biography is concise, forthright and potent. With 161 pages of text, this review of Hoover’s life is extremely efficient, highly insightful and extremely well balanced. But despite the failed reputation of the book’s subject, it is quickly apparent that Hoover’s life (if not his political career) deserves every page which can be afforded.
The book’s earliest pages are filled with praise and admiration for Hoover’s fascinating early life and private-sector accomplishments. This is followed by a robust description and thoughtful critique of Hoover’s service in Washington including his response, as president, to the Great Depression. In the end, Leuchtenburg concludes that even without the burden of the Depression, Hoover’s legacy would be hampered by his rigid and uncharismatic style and his other political deficiencies.
But if the book’s efficiency is one of its compelling attributes, this brevity is also one of its greatest weaknesses. Hoover’s pre-presidency is enormously compelling: he endured an austere upbringing, hopscotched the world as a mining engineer and founded his own global firm. He led an effort during World War I to save much of Belgium from starvation, was appointed head of the U.S. Food Administration by Woodrow Wilson and later became Warren Harding’s Secretary of Commerce.
Unfortunately, the first forty years of his life are covered in fewer than two-dozen pages – and this is a period which could easily be the basis for a dramatic Candice Millard narrative such as “The River of Doubt: Theodore Roosevelt’s Darkest Journey.” Also missing in this biography are numerous details of his personal life; his wife and two sons hardly seem to exist.
Discussion of the 1928 Republican convention which nominated him for the presidency received just a single sentence. Coverage of his presidential campaign was unmemorable…and I can hardly recall mention of his Democratic challenger. Assembly of his Cabinet – something biographers often take great pleasure in analyzing and dissecting – took just a paragraph. But if his post-presidency was also covered too quickly, Hoover’s presidency itself was provided adequate space and excellent attention.
Overall, William Leuchtenburg’s biography of Herbert Hoover performs more than adequately in its role to comprehensively but not exhaustively cover the life of its subject. Although his coverage of Hoover’s life is not particularly colorful or vibrant, the author applies care and skill to his analysis of Hoover’s private and public careers. And if the greatest service a biography can perform is to educate on a basic level – and to inspire a more detailed subsequent exploration of a subject’s life – then this biography succeeds admirably.
Overall rating: 3½ stars
August 14, 2015
Book Forty-Two of my Presidential Challenge.
Herbert Hoover was a complicated fellow. He was stubborn, never letting facts get in the way of his political philosophy of laissez-faire. He was deluded, believing that local government and voluntarism could solve the Great Depression when it clearly couldn't.
His belief is voluntarism given his career is particularly perplexing. His pre-Presidential career involved him personally getting food and supplies to many in need during WWI. However, almost all of the funds that provided the same were from governments, not private charity. Time and again, Hoover seemed to omit this fact from his mind. During the Great Depression, this chicken would come home to roost.
Hoover reminded me most of Andrew Johnson in terms of pure stubbornness. Nothing is more dangerous than a deluded man who is sure that history will vindicate him.
But here's the $1,000,000 question: Did Hoover cause the Great Depression? Absolutely not! Did he make it worse? Oh, for sure! His instincts were horrible on this front. All of the charity he had shown to European nations during WWI seemed to vanish in the wind. He seemed to believe that there was something fundamental about Americans that would reject government action on this scale. Added to this, Hoover was in denial about how bad conditions really were until it was too late made the Depression much, much worse.
Would we remember him fondly but for the Great Depression? Another big no. He was already burning many legislative bridges prior to the Depression and was well on his way to mediocrity at best when all of the proverbial shit hit the fan.
I will say this for Hoover, his heart was in the right place. He was a self made man and saved many, many lives during WWI. He was just too stubborn to admit when his political philosophy hit a brick wall. Flexibility is a strength that I have discovered in all of the great Presidents. Lack of imagination and rigidity is found in the worst.
And is Hoover the worst? No way! I think Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan easily have him beat, but I've got to tell you guys, he could very well be number three. That's just the way the presidential cookie crumbles: If you overcome adversity, you're one of the greats (Washington, Lincoln,FDR). If adversity overcomes you, you're not (Van Buren, Buchanan, Johnson, Hoover).
Oh yeah, the book! Great stuff. It shows his strengths and weaknesses and makes me want to learn more.
Herbert Hoover was a complicated fellow. He was stubborn, never letting facts get in the way of his political philosophy of laissez-faire. He was deluded, believing that local government and voluntarism could solve the Great Depression when it clearly couldn't.
His belief is voluntarism given his career is particularly perplexing. His pre-Presidential career involved him personally getting food and supplies to many in need during WWI. However, almost all of the funds that provided the same were from governments, not private charity. Time and again, Hoover seemed to omit this fact from his mind. During the Great Depression, this chicken would come home to roost.
Hoover reminded me most of Andrew Johnson in terms of pure stubbornness. Nothing is more dangerous than a deluded man who is sure that history will vindicate him.
But here's the $1,000,000 question: Did Hoover cause the Great Depression? Absolutely not! Did he make it worse? Oh, for sure! His instincts were horrible on this front. All of the charity he had shown to European nations during WWI seemed to vanish in the wind. He seemed to believe that there was something fundamental about Americans that would reject government action on this scale. Added to this, Hoover was in denial about how bad conditions really were until it was too late made the Depression much, much worse.
Would we remember him fondly but for the Great Depression? Another big no. He was already burning many legislative bridges prior to the Depression and was well on his way to mediocrity at best when all of the proverbial shit hit the fan.
I will say this for Hoover, his heart was in the right place. He was a self made man and saved many, many lives during WWI. He was just too stubborn to admit when his political philosophy hit a brick wall. Flexibility is a strength that I have discovered in all of the great Presidents. Lack of imagination and rigidity is found in the worst.
And is Hoover the worst? No way! I think Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan easily have him beat, but I've got to tell you guys, he could very well be number three. That's just the way the presidential cookie crumbles: If you overcome adversity, you're one of the greats (Washington, Lincoln,FDR). If adversity overcomes you, you're not (Van Buren, Buchanan, Johnson, Hoover).
Oh yeah, the book! Great stuff. It shows his strengths and weaknesses and makes me want to learn more.
November 11, 2023
Hoover was in many ways exactly the type of Republican dispassionate people can admire. He really believed in individual initiative, that those who have should provide for those who need, and government should only address very limited issues related to the common good. In theory this is noble; in practice, especially when a modern financial system has gone amuck, it can be catastrophic. Hoover walked the walk in his private life. A self-made millionaire, he felt it was is responsibility to give back to those less fortunate, only it was his choice as to what he should do, not the role of government to dictate it.
His work to address post-World War I famine in Europe alone put him in an exceptional category. His administrative work literally saved millions of lives. As Secretary of Commerce, he was as competent a government bureaucrat as the U.S. had ever experienced. But as president, his personal philosophy was not enough to address the Great Depression. Much like Jimmy Carter, he devoted his post-presidential life to good works, but the bitterness of his failed presidency never quite faded. He was a great man who could not achieve the expected greatness of his potential when faced with an economic catastrophe of proportions that was never faced by a president before him.
His work to address post-World War I famine in Europe alone put him in an exceptional category. His administrative work literally saved millions of lives. As Secretary of Commerce, he was as competent a government bureaucrat as the U.S. had ever experienced. But as president, his personal philosophy was not enough to address the Great Depression. Much like Jimmy Carter, he devoted his post-presidential life to good works, but the bitterness of his failed presidency never quite faded. He was a great man who could not achieve the expected greatness of his potential when faced with an economic catastrophe of proportions that was never faced by a president before him.
August 26, 2017
Hoover was a man of his time. I see him as mediocre president at best. To best understand the evolution of US politics it is best to read biographies of all the presidents in the order they served.
June 29, 2012
Leuchtenburg's book is quite good, and he hits homeruns on his arguments that Herbert Hoover was hypocritical about his feelings on government intervention (he was for it when he wasn't against it), self deluding on his impacts throughout his career (he claimed he did much more than he actually did many times), and a sour puss who should never have run for president, let alone won the office. "The Oval Office," Leuchtenburg writes at the end. "Requires more than dedication and managerial skills, both of which he had in abundance." The moral of this fable of lost chances, for sure. This most definitely a timely read, with the government expanding and our economy in a rut. Hoover is definitely a man who would be right at home in today's Republican Party, at least the Tea Party wing.
June 14, 2011
I first became interested in President Hoover from Harry Truman’s Excellent Adventure, in which I read that before Hoover became president, he was a national hero, the “great humanitarian” who fed the starving in post-World War I Europe. That came as a great surprise to me, as all I remember learning about him in school was that he was blamed for the Great Depression. So I wanted to know how he went from being “the great humanitarian” to being the source for the nickname for shantytowns, i.e. “Hoovervilles.” I asked the author of the Truman book about it (ain’t the Internet amazing?), and he directed me to this biography, which is one among a whole series on the American Presidents.
First, a word about the whole series. Arthur Schlesinger wrote that the intent of the series is “to present the grand panorama of our chief executives in volumes compact enough for the busy reader, lucid enough for the student, and authoritative enough for the scholar.” This book completely fit the bill. It was only 161 pages, but definitely a work of scholarship. I even had to look up a few words in the dictionary (pellucid, procrustean, jejune), which rarely happens anymore. I think it would be an interesting project to read every book in the series in order. Certainly, I’m curious about trying out a few more.
My interest in Hoover was piqued again in my recent Little House binge when I discovered that Rose Wilder Lane was a big supporter of his and wrote a biography that was so hagiographic, even he denied its truth. It will be interesting to read it, after having read this one. Some might call this book critical; I say it was fair. The author shows both sides of the man, his rise and fall, his good qualities and his bad. I’ve got a much clearer understanding of how the great humanitarian became whipping boy for the Depression. But as to why he misjudged the circumstances so badly – perhaps nobody can answer that.
Hoover’s was a rags-to-riches story. He was born poor, orphaned young, and apprenticed out to work as a teenager. He nonetheless made it to college, where he came under the wing of a geologist, which led him to a supervisory job in a mine in Australia after graduation. His treatment of his workers was pretty shabby. In an 1897 letter he wrote to his bosses in London, “I have a bunch of Italians coming up this week and will put them in the mine on contract work. If they are satisfactory, I will secure enough of them to hold the property in case of a general strike, and with your permission, will reduce wages.”
As for himself, though, he made enough money that he felt he could finally propose to his sweetheart, Lou. After they married, he landed another job in China, and after that, the couple moved to London. By then, Hoover was extremely wealthy. By 1912, when he returned to the U.S., he was a millionaire four times over and turned his interests to public service. Because of his extensive international experience, he was appointed to head a commission for relief in Belgium in the First World War, which he ran with such swimming success that later, when the Depression made him persona non grata in the U.S., the Belgians still hailed him as a hero. When World War I ended, he became “food czar” or head of the Food Administration. Though staunchly anti-Communist, he organized massive food shipments across Soviet lines. When criticized for using American money to aid Bolsheviks, he said, “Twenty million people are starving. Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!”
The success of these food missions was due to his incredible efficiency. And though he certainly had a big heart, his personality left a lot to be desired. His manners were cold and standoffish, and he did not accept criticism gracefully. One incident which the author states as showing Hoover at his best and worst was in 1927 when the Mississippi River flooded. Reminiscent of Hurricane Katrina, the levees broke, filling cities with brown water, drowning thousands, and leaving more homeless. In addition to dispatching an enormous relief effort, he appointed Robert Russa Moton (successor to Booker T. Washington as head of Tuskegee Institute) as special advisor on the plight of African Americans in the crisis. But when Dr. Moton exposed abuses, Hoover raged at him and had him rewrite his report. All in all, though, his response in the flood installed him as presidential material in the eyes of the American public, and one year later, that is exactly what he became.
His first year in office was fairly uneventful. Some of his policies were so progressive, the liberals “claimed” him; the man who proposed to cut his workers’ wages seemed long gone. But then came the stock market crash.
Reading about the Hoovervilles, food lines, and people wandering desperately in search of work put our current recession into a new light. My husband is among the unemployed, but we are not homeless or starving. Our investment account has declined tremendously, but we didn’t lose everything we had in a bank run. As much as there are similarities between that crash and ours, including a bank bailout as shameful as the recent one, the Great Depression was much, much worse.
People always bash the president when times are bad, but Hoover didn’t deserve all the blame. Before the Crash, his was one of the voices warning against excessive use of credit, though nobody remembered that when they were starving. All they wanted was for the great humanitarian to feed them. And he didn’t.
And this, to me, is the most maddening puzzle about Hoover. When he was overseeing food distribution, he appealed to the government for funds, acknowledging that charitable gifts were too irregular to be reliable. But now he was taking the hard line that we so often hear today: government hand-outs make people dependent and lazy; it’s the responsibility of charity, not government. As the author points out, why is a hand-out from charity less likely to create dependency than a government hand-out?
Then Hoover put the final nail in his coffin. When a group of World War I veterans marched peacefully on Washington to demand an early release of their benefits, Hoover ordered the troops on them. They were led by none other than Douglas MacArthur.
I’m too young to remember much about the Nixon years, but I did live through Carter and the hostage crisis and the impeachment of Clinton. I hear plenty of Obama-bashing, too, especially in my own community. But I don’t think any president was as hated as Hoover was after that. While campaigning for his second term, dynamite was found on the tracks where his train was scheduled to go. It was removed, whereupon he met with booing crowds. Then, settling into a hotel, he received an anonymous telegram: “Vote for FDR. Make it unanimous.” And when FDR finally did win, Hoover didn’t just recede from the public view. He lived three more decades, watching historians label him a “failed president.” Truman helped to redeem him for a time, but it didn’t last.
As I said earlier in this review, this book told me the hows, but not the whys. Perhaps nobody can really understand why. People are a bundle of contradictions, and they’re bound to mess up. So to end this heavy review with a lightweight variation on Dumbledore: being more powerful than the average man, Hoover’s mistakes were correspondingly huger.
First, a word about the whole series. Arthur Schlesinger wrote that the intent of the series is “to present the grand panorama of our chief executives in volumes compact enough for the busy reader, lucid enough for the student, and authoritative enough for the scholar.” This book completely fit the bill. It was only 161 pages, but definitely a work of scholarship. I even had to look up a few words in the dictionary (pellucid, procrustean, jejune), which rarely happens anymore. I think it would be an interesting project to read every book in the series in order. Certainly, I’m curious about trying out a few more.
My interest in Hoover was piqued again in my recent Little House binge when I discovered that Rose Wilder Lane was a big supporter of his and wrote a biography that was so hagiographic, even he denied its truth. It will be interesting to read it, after having read this one. Some might call this book critical; I say it was fair. The author shows both sides of the man, his rise and fall, his good qualities and his bad. I’ve got a much clearer understanding of how the great humanitarian became whipping boy for the Depression. But as to why he misjudged the circumstances so badly – perhaps nobody can answer that.
Hoover’s was a rags-to-riches story. He was born poor, orphaned young, and apprenticed out to work as a teenager. He nonetheless made it to college, where he came under the wing of a geologist, which led him to a supervisory job in a mine in Australia after graduation. His treatment of his workers was pretty shabby. In an 1897 letter he wrote to his bosses in London, “I have a bunch of Italians coming up this week and will put them in the mine on contract work. If they are satisfactory, I will secure enough of them to hold the property in case of a general strike, and with your permission, will reduce wages.”
As for himself, though, he made enough money that he felt he could finally propose to his sweetheart, Lou. After they married, he landed another job in China, and after that, the couple moved to London. By then, Hoover was extremely wealthy. By 1912, when he returned to the U.S., he was a millionaire four times over and turned his interests to public service. Because of his extensive international experience, he was appointed to head a commission for relief in Belgium in the First World War, which he ran with such swimming success that later, when the Depression made him persona non grata in the U.S., the Belgians still hailed him as a hero. When World War I ended, he became “food czar” or head of the Food Administration. Though staunchly anti-Communist, he organized massive food shipments across Soviet lines. When criticized for using American money to aid Bolsheviks, he said, “Twenty million people are starving. Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!”
The success of these food missions was due to his incredible efficiency. And though he certainly had a big heart, his personality left a lot to be desired. His manners were cold and standoffish, and he did not accept criticism gracefully. One incident which the author states as showing Hoover at his best and worst was in 1927 when the Mississippi River flooded. Reminiscent of Hurricane Katrina, the levees broke, filling cities with brown water, drowning thousands, and leaving more homeless. In addition to dispatching an enormous relief effort, he appointed Robert Russa Moton (successor to Booker T. Washington as head of Tuskegee Institute) as special advisor on the plight of African Americans in the crisis. But when Dr. Moton exposed abuses, Hoover raged at him and had him rewrite his report. All in all, though, his response in the flood installed him as presidential material in the eyes of the American public, and one year later, that is exactly what he became.
His first year in office was fairly uneventful. Some of his policies were so progressive, the liberals “claimed” him; the man who proposed to cut his workers’ wages seemed long gone. But then came the stock market crash.
Reading about the Hoovervilles, food lines, and people wandering desperately in search of work put our current recession into a new light. My husband is among the unemployed, but we are not homeless or starving. Our investment account has declined tremendously, but we didn’t lose everything we had in a bank run. As much as there are similarities between that crash and ours, including a bank bailout as shameful as the recent one, the Great Depression was much, much worse.
People always bash the president when times are bad, but Hoover didn’t deserve all the blame. Before the Crash, his was one of the voices warning against excessive use of credit, though nobody remembered that when they were starving. All they wanted was for the great humanitarian to feed them. And he didn’t.
And this, to me, is the most maddening puzzle about Hoover. When he was overseeing food distribution, he appealed to the government for funds, acknowledging that charitable gifts were too irregular to be reliable. But now he was taking the hard line that we so often hear today: government hand-outs make people dependent and lazy; it’s the responsibility of charity, not government. As the author points out, why is a hand-out from charity less likely to create dependency than a government hand-out?
Then Hoover put the final nail in his coffin. When a group of World War I veterans marched peacefully on Washington to demand an early release of their benefits, Hoover ordered the troops on them. They were led by none other than Douglas MacArthur.
I’m too young to remember much about the Nixon years, but I did live through Carter and the hostage crisis and the impeachment of Clinton. I hear plenty of Obama-bashing, too, especially in my own community. But I don’t think any president was as hated as Hoover was after that. While campaigning for his second term, dynamite was found on the tracks where his train was scheduled to go. It was removed, whereupon he met with booing crowds. Then, settling into a hotel, he received an anonymous telegram: “Vote for FDR. Make it unanimous.” And when FDR finally did win, Hoover didn’t just recede from the public view. He lived three more decades, watching historians label him a “failed president.” Truman helped to redeem him for a time, but it didn’t last.
As I said earlier in this review, this book told me the hows, but not the whys. Perhaps nobody can really understand why. People are a bundle of contradictions, and they’re bound to mess up. So to end this heavy review with a lightweight variation on Dumbledore: being more powerful than the average man, Hoover’s mistakes were correspondingly huger.
July 12, 2012
History 101 teaches that Herbert Hoover was one of the biggest failures as President, with the term "Hooverville" probably a correct answer on a test in every high school history class. But aside from his presiding over the economy's crash and sudden plummeting into depression (and as a song in the musical "Annie"), I did not know much about him. In fact, he is most known in contrast with FDR, who used unprecedented actions to try to reverse the slide.
As Hoover actually took over from Calvin Coolidge at the beginning of 1930, after the stock market crash, I read William Leuchtenburg's short biography to learn more about the Hoover of the 1920s, and how the nation would choose someone destined for infamy. Was he simply the obvious safe answer to continue the string of Republican administrations? I was surprised the answer was no.
Harding was the transition from Wilsonian Democrats to Republican governments at the beginning of the 1920s and Coolidge was the accidental hands-off administrator that let the decade roar. Harding only had minimal prior experience in Washington and his strategy was to offend no one. Coolidge had even less experience and used a strategy of saying nothing. And both were clearly in the conservative camps. In contrast, by the time Hoover was the nominee at the end of the decade, he was a dynamo, a strong personality, known for taking strong actions, offending many, and not fitting neatly into the political parties.
The first part of Hoover's public career reminded me a lot of Robert Moses, the infamous "Power Broker" (and subject of Robert Caro's great biography), who at this time was just getting started in his role as the great mastermind and behind the scenes engineer of New York City who consolidated and wielded power to transform the city from a base of seemingly minor appointed positions. While not elected, as head of the Food Administration under Wilson and then as Commerce Secretary for Harding and Coolidge, Hoover consolidated power and responsibility, creating mini empires out of previously lower level administration positions. He had tremendous ego and ambition and defended his actions in the name of public good. I don't know when the term was first used for a powerful person in our government, but his description as a Czar seems very appropriate.
Upon review it is not surprising that Hoover's aggressive style did not fit neatly into characteristic Republican profile (either conservative or progressive), yet his self-identified conservativeness and open criticism of government's abilities versus individual's did not put him in the Democratic camp. So for ten years he existed as a powerful force and contrasting style within the relatively weak Republican administrations. At the end of Coolidge's reign he cited the inevitability of Herbert Hoover as one reason not to pursue an additional term. Is this a common trend in history, that when top leadership is weak that counter personality forces will emerge? And the inverse, when leadership is strong that it is difficult for other strong players to develop? Surely there must be other examples.
The 1920s America was one of heroes. The public adored Charles Lindbergh, Babe Ruth, Henry Ford and others that symbolized the country's new position of leadership on the world stage and progression into the modern world through mighty feats. With no heroes in the White House, Hoover was probably the closest fit for that role within the government with his famous actions to feed Europe and save food during the War and prominent roles afterward. Plus his upbringing and early life success was straight out of a Horatio Alger story. His pre-presidential stature is largely forgotten today.
Moving to the next decade the two big questions are: Although he didn't cause the Great Depression did he make it worse? And, if he did not inherit a crumbling economy, could Hoover have been a good or even great president?
The short answer to the first question is: probably. While he could not have prevented the collapse, and it would have happened to anyone in his seat, he did not take the right actions to alleviate the situation. In his defense, throughout the 1920s and in the 1929 election, there were no competing voices warning of impending depression and the need for preventative action. Much of today's economic understanding and strategies were not known at the time. However his attitude to downplay the severity, focus on adding tariffs, and limiting relief among other actions only exacerbated things and at a minimum caused the public to lose faith in government at a time it was most needed. While what he did and didn't do was not necessarily inconsistent with common thinking at the time, it is exposed by the urgent and bold new actions taken by Roosevelt when he takes over.
As for his chance for success sans the collapse, Leuchtenburg argues that it still would have been slim. He concludes that Hoover's engineering czar style of operating was not compatible with the office of the President. He didn't have the ability to navigate the politics that are necessary for accomplishments in Washington. And because he didn't fit well within the conservative or progressive groups within the party he did not have a core base of support. While he may have been elected to a second term simply because he was an incumbent Republican in that era, he would not have accomplished much. (Funny aside: as I was finishing the book I read Scott Adams of Dilbert fame asking if we should have engineers run the government.)
Alas, Herbert Hoover is cemented in history along with the legacies of Martin Van Buren, James Buchanon, U.S. Grant, and Grover Cleveland who presided over economic Depressions and effectively sat on their hands.
Leuchtenburg's book is good for this series. He does not overly defend his subject and writes a compelling narrative. I really enjoyed the years leading up to the White House. I did expect the author to be building a case that Hoover has been given a raw deal by history because of the success and personality of the mining executive and Secretary. If I had stopped there the book would get five stars and Herbert Hoover would be my new favorite president. But the latter half of the book is a less gripping story and includes all of the expected descriptions of his fall that do not need much analysis. All in all, 4/5 stars for an unexpected good read.
Going into the three consecutive biographies, I expected Harding to be the most interesting book, followed by Hoover and then Coolidge. How wrong I was.
http://ushistoryreadingproject.blogsp...
As Hoover actually took over from Calvin Coolidge at the beginning of 1930, after the stock market crash, I read William Leuchtenburg's short biography to learn more about the Hoover of the 1920s, and how the nation would choose someone destined for infamy. Was he simply the obvious safe answer to continue the string of Republican administrations? I was surprised the answer was no.
Harding was the transition from Wilsonian Democrats to Republican governments at the beginning of the 1920s and Coolidge was the accidental hands-off administrator that let the decade roar. Harding only had minimal prior experience in Washington and his strategy was to offend no one. Coolidge had even less experience and used a strategy of saying nothing. And both were clearly in the conservative camps. In contrast, by the time Hoover was the nominee at the end of the decade, he was a dynamo, a strong personality, known for taking strong actions, offending many, and not fitting neatly into the political parties.
The first part of Hoover's public career reminded me a lot of Robert Moses, the infamous "Power Broker" (and subject of Robert Caro's great biography), who at this time was just getting started in his role as the great mastermind and behind the scenes engineer of New York City who consolidated and wielded power to transform the city from a base of seemingly minor appointed positions. While not elected, as head of the Food Administration under Wilson and then as Commerce Secretary for Harding and Coolidge, Hoover consolidated power and responsibility, creating mini empires out of previously lower level administration positions. He had tremendous ego and ambition and defended his actions in the name of public good. I don't know when the term was first used for a powerful person in our government, but his description as a Czar seems very appropriate.
Upon review it is not surprising that Hoover's aggressive style did not fit neatly into characteristic Republican profile (either conservative or progressive), yet his self-identified conservativeness and open criticism of government's abilities versus individual's did not put him in the Democratic camp. So for ten years he existed as a powerful force and contrasting style within the relatively weak Republican administrations. At the end of Coolidge's reign he cited the inevitability of Herbert Hoover as one reason not to pursue an additional term. Is this a common trend in history, that when top leadership is weak that counter personality forces will emerge? And the inverse, when leadership is strong that it is difficult for other strong players to develop? Surely there must be other examples.
The 1920s America was one of heroes. The public adored Charles Lindbergh, Babe Ruth, Henry Ford and others that symbolized the country's new position of leadership on the world stage and progression into the modern world through mighty feats. With no heroes in the White House, Hoover was probably the closest fit for that role within the government with his famous actions to feed Europe and save food during the War and prominent roles afterward. Plus his upbringing and early life success was straight out of a Horatio Alger story. His pre-presidential stature is largely forgotten today.
Moving to the next decade the two big questions are: Although he didn't cause the Great Depression did he make it worse? And, if he did not inherit a crumbling economy, could Hoover have been a good or even great president?
The short answer to the first question is: probably. While he could not have prevented the collapse, and it would have happened to anyone in his seat, he did not take the right actions to alleviate the situation. In his defense, throughout the 1920s and in the 1929 election, there were no competing voices warning of impending depression and the need for preventative action. Much of today's economic understanding and strategies were not known at the time. However his attitude to downplay the severity, focus on adding tariffs, and limiting relief among other actions only exacerbated things and at a minimum caused the public to lose faith in government at a time it was most needed. While what he did and didn't do was not necessarily inconsistent with common thinking at the time, it is exposed by the urgent and bold new actions taken by Roosevelt when he takes over.
As for his chance for success sans the collapse, Leuchtenburg argues that it still would have been slim. He concludes that Hoover's engineering czar style of operating was not compatible with the office of the President. He didn't have the ability to navigate the politics that are necessary for accomplishments in Washington. And because he didn't fit well within the conservative or progressive groups within the party he did not have a core base of support. While he may have been elected to a second term simply because he was an incumbent Republican in that era, he would not have accomplished much. (Funny aside: as I was finishing the book I read Scott Adams of Dilbert fame asking if we should have engineers run the government.)
Alas, Herbert Hoover is cemented in history along with the legacies of Martin Van Buren, James Buchanon, U.S. Grant, and Grover Cleveland who presided over economic Depressions and effectively sat on their hands.
Leuchtenburg's book is good for this series. He does not overly defend his subject and writes a compelling narrative. I really enjoyed the years leading up to the White House. I did expect the author to be building a case that Hoover has been given a raw deal by history because of the success and personality of the mining executive and Secretary. If I had stopped there the book would get five stars and Herbert Hoover would be my new favorite president. But the latter half of the book is a less gripping story and includes all of the expected descriptions of his fall that do not need much analysis. All in all, 4/5 stars for an unexpected good read.
Going into the three consecutive biographies, I expected Harding to be the most interesting book, followed by Hoover and then Coolidge. How wrong I was.
http://ushistoryreadingproject.blogsp...
June 19, 2013
I’ve probably read 8 or 9 of the American Presidents series biographies. They are totally hit or miss, but for a lot of the presidents, it was really the only viable option out there. There were a couple of other Herbert Hoover books out there but they were either very expensive or very long and I knew I didn’t want either.* So I ended up with another American Presidents book… and it was a total hit.
We’re getting into a period of American history that I’m totally fascinated by (Depression/WWII), so maybe that was part of it, but really I think that this was just a really concise, well written biography.
There are a few things that really stuck with me. Let me list them:
-Before he was president, Hoover headed up the Food Administration during WWI. Before him there was no such thing. He had worked in Europe on getting food to people when they entered the war, so when the US entered it just made sense that Hoover would come back and do the same thing here. He did an amazing job. Because of him tons of people didn’t starve. So for all the bad things people said about Hoover later, this was good stuff. I thought that how he carried this out (volunteers and straight up propaganda) was way interesting & I could read a whole book about that.
-After that, he became Secretary of Commerce, which was a pretty new position, meaning that Hoover could pretty much just do his own thing. There was a giant flood on the Mississippi and he again organized volunteers and the Red Cross and got it taken care of. Bam.
-He was elected president easily and went into office and really got off to a great start. And then…
-The Great Depression. Part of me wonders if Hoover would have been remembered totally differently by history if not for the Great Depression. Here is something I thought was crazy: You know, the market crashed in October. In December when the newspapers were doing “year in review”s, that wasn’t at the top of the list. It didn’t seem like a huge deal. People (including the government) figured that these things happen and that the market would correct itself, so no one was really worried… until it didn’t. And still didn’t. Then continued to not.
-Hoover never really got on board the “we need to fix this” train, thereby assuring that he’d be remembered as the president that led us into then sat by idly while we endured the Great Depression. Womp womp.
So there it is, totally low ranked president who I expected to not enjoy at all was actually a really interesting, good read. I love happy surprises.
*I love long books generally, but I knew that my next few biographies were going to be long ones and for whatever reason I thought reading a long biography of Hoover too would be wasting time? I have no idea.
We’re getting into a period of American history that I’m totally fascinated by (Depression/WWII), so maybe that was part of it, but really I think that this was just a really concise, well written biography.
There are a few things that really stuck with me. Let me list them:
-Before he was president, Hoover headed up the Food Administration during WWI. Before him there was no such thing. He had worked in Europe on getting food to people when they entered the war, so when the US entered it just made sense that Hoover would come back and do the same thing here. He did an amazing job. Because of him tons of people didn’t starve. So for all the bad things people said about Hoover later, this was good stuff. I thought that how he carried this out (volunteers and straight up propaganda) was way interesting & I could read a whole book about that.
-After that, he became Secretary of Commerce, which was a pretty new position, meaning that Hoover could pretty much just do his own thing. There was a giant flood on the Mississippi and he again organized volunteers and the Red Cross and got it taken care of. Bam.
-He was elected president easily and went into office and really got off to a great start. And then…
-The Great Depression. Part of me wonders if Hoover would have been remembered totally differently by history if not for the Great Depression. Here is something I thought was crazy: You know, the market crashed in October. In December when the newspapers were doing “year in review”s, that wasn’t at the top of the list. It didn’t seem like a huge deal. People (including the government) figured that these things happen and that the market would correct itself, so no one was really worried… until it didn’t. And still didn’t. Then continued to not.
-Hoover never really got on board the “we need to fix this” train, thereby assuring that he’d be remembered as the president that led us into then sat by idly while we endured the Great Depression. Womp womp.
So there it is, totally low ranked president who I expected to not enjoy at all was actually a really interesting, good read. I love happy surprises.
*I love long books generally, but I knew that my next few biographies were going to be long ones and for whatever reason I thought reading a long biography of Hoover too would be wasting time? I have no idea.
September 25, 2009
This biography of Herbert Hoover represents yet one more entry in “The American Presidents” series of books, originally under the editorial direction of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., before his death (since, Sean Wilentz has come on board as editor). Hoover, of course, suffered greatly in the estimation if history by presiding over the Great Depression. The interesting twist in this book is the contention that Hoover may well have failed anyway, as a result of his rigidity, lack of empathy, and his engineering bent of mind.
Hoover grew up in modest circumstances and lost both of his parents early on. The author details his transfer to an Uncle, described as akin to a character right out of Dickens. His childhood was hard. He caught a break and ended up attending Stanford as an engineering student, an environment in which he did well, even though he was socially awkward and introverted.
As his life unfolded, he became a major player internationally, amassed a small fortune, and found people coming to dislike working with him. His rigidity, certainty in his decisions, and near authoritarian bent were turn offs for many. During World War I, he performed heroically in getting humanitarian aid to victims of the war. His personal iciness and top down style continued. He extolled the virtues of voluntarism in aiding war victims (although the reality is that most of the money was from governments—indicating his overconfidence in voluntarism as a means of dealing with crises, an almost instinctive idea to him that did not help his Depression policies succeed).
Then, he served with the government for a number of years, finally succeeding Calvin Coolidge as President in 1929. There was some promise in his decisions early on, but as the Depression hit, problems increased. His overdependence on voluntarism, his rigidity in working with others, his fear of inappropriate government intervention did not work. At times, he seemed almost paralyzed. His departure from the presidency as FDR replaced him is a poignant to read about.
After his departure, he had some major service left in him. But he was bitter for decades about being underappreciated as president.
Another nice entry in the series. This is different from most other works in one respect; the author is much more overtly critical of Hoover as a person and as a leader than are most other authors. All in all, a good, brisk introduction to Herbert Hoover.
Hoover grew up in modest circumstances and lost both of his parents early on. The author details his transfer to an Uncle, described as akin to a character right out of Dickens. His childhood was hard. He caught a break and ended up attending Stanford as an engineering student, an environment in which he did well, even though he was socially awkward and introverted.
As his life unfolded, he became a major player internationally, amassed a small fortune, and found people coming to dislike working with him. His rigidity, certainty in his decisions, and near authoritarian bent were turn offs for many. During World War I, he performed heroically in getting humanitarian aid to victims of the war. His personal iciness and top down style continued. He extolled the virtues of voluntarism in aiding war victims (although the reality is that most of the money was from governments—indicating his overconfidence in voluntarism as a means of dealing with crises, an almost instinctive idea to him that did not help his Depression policies succeed).
Then, he served with the government for a number of years, finally succeeding Calvin Coolidge as President in 1929. There was some promise in his decisions early on, but as the Depression hit, problems increased. His overdependence on voluntarism, his rigidity in working with others, his fear of inappropriate government intervention did not work. At times, he seemed almost paralyzed. His departure from the presidency as FDR replaced him is a poignant to read about.
After his departure, he had some major service left in him. But he was bitter for decades about being underappreciated as president.
Another nice entry in the series. This is different from most other works in one respect; the author is much more overtly critical of Hoover as a person and as a leader than are most other authors. All in all, a good, brisk introduction to Herbert Hoover.
November 8, 2017
I decided to read a few books about Herbert Hoover after a visit to the Stanford campus this past summer. I was intrigued by two museum-like rooms devoted to Hoover and his wife at the base of the tower which bares his namesake. I remember learning of him as a failed president, and yet his room lauded all the good he had done. The displays painted him as a humanitarian who had done much to alleviate suffering in the world. Um but what about the Great Depression? I was curious and determined to learn more.
The library didn't have many biographies about Herbert Hoover. The first one I read was geared towards children and was unfairly balanced, lauding Hoover's successes and glossing over his faults.
The third one was way too long to commit my time to reading. I wasn't THAT interested in learning ALL the details.
This was the second book. It was the perfect length--not too long, not too short (I feel like Goldilocks and the Three Bears saying that).
In this book, I learned that Hoover was both cooler and much less cool than I had originally thought. He was a man who emanated conflicting characteristics. He fed millions of Europeans after WWI, but couldn't help his fellow countrymen following the Depression, and then was instrumental in feeding millions of Europeans again following WWII.
Hoover was blamed for the Depression, but a lot of it was not his fault. He claimed he was the "receiver" of the situation, not the cause. However, he clearly did not do enough to help ameliorate the suffering Americans endured while he was in office. In fact, for years he was blamed for many problems, whether or not he had anything to do with him. He became an anathema to the public. After he lost his second term election, in subsequent elections, other candidates refused to even appear with him for fear of tainting their reputation and ruining their chances in the race for office. Indeed, Hoover was a man with a sullied reputation, deserved or not.
He was also a sore loser. He spent much of his life after the presidency nursing his grievances, embittered and disgruntled, living in denial of how things really were. He also made no attempt to hide his contempt of Roosevelt after losing to him. In his defense, FDR held the same contempt for Hoover and didn't make amends either.
As I was reading, I found myself pitying Hoover. He has a sad back story. He was orphaned at a young age, raised by an indifferent uncle, had trouble in college at first. He proved himself capable and actually was quite skilled in his field of interest, mining and geology, and showed an affinity towards business management, when it came to mining companies. Within ten years or so of graduating from Stanford, Hoover had made himself his first million. He had a passion for scholarly work and application. He and his wife, Lou Henry Hoover, together translated a previously untranslatable Latin text foundational to geology and mining. He showed himself adept at organizing efforts to help get expats home at the advent of WWI, as well at organizing efforts for relief, especially in Belgium. While he was considered a failure as president, "there was more to his career than the four years in the White House. Hoover... 'fed more people and saved more lives than any other man in history.'"
He also had certain traits that made him very difficult to deal with. He was stubborn and held to his convictions at the cost of victory with concessions. He was not personable. He would have fits when things didn't go his way. He spoke with a monotonous voice, carrying little emotion, and often wouldn't speak at all, when there was nothing necessary to stay. He was inept at small talk and had few friends. While he might have had a strong, analytical mind, he did not have the people skills to translate his analytical skills to successful power, especially in politics. Indeed, if he were growing up today, he might even have been diagnosed as a child having Asperger's/High Functioning Autism.
And so, I feel sorry for him. He was a misunderstood man. He had charitable impulses, yet struggled to apply them consistently (he believed the American people should help each other out instead of the government providing a dole, which works, but only when there are people who are charitable who also have enough to give). He was inconsistent in many areas, and yet stuck to his firm-held beliefs in others. The book states, "what others deplored as rigidity, he saw as steadfastness." That is a hard way for anyone to live their life, president or not.
And now, a few notes on the author's style. It took me longer than it should have to get through this book several months in fact. It was a painfully dull read for me. And yet I persevered. I really didn't want to give up and not give Hoover a chance. I found myself annoyed with the author. He's obviously a very knowledgeable historian. However, he only conveys half that knowledge to his audience, assuming the audience knows much of what he alludes to in his book (such as events and people). Yes, I know, if he took the time to explain everything, the book would be that much longer, but some explanation would have been helpful. Authorial assumptions only get you so far. Ironically, the author felt the need, in one paragraph, to give the definition of disarmament in a parenthetical aside. I am honest when I say that the author could have defined many other words instead.
It suffices me to say, there is a lot more to Hoover than the history books imply, and a little research is helpful to help one attain a more well-rounded perspective on his character.
The library didn't have many biographies about Herbert Hoover. The first one I read was geared towards children and was unfairly balanced, lauding Hoover's successes and glossing over his faults.
The third one was way too long to commit my time to reading. I wasn't THAT interested in learning ALL the details.
This was the second book. It was the perfect length--not too long, not too short (I feel like Goldilocks and the Three Bears saying that).
In this book, I learned that Hoover was both cooler and much less cool than I had originally thought. He was a man who emanated conflicting characteristics. He fed millions of Europeans after WWI, but couldn't help his fellow countrymen following the Depression, and then was instrumental in feeding millions of Europeans again following WWII.
Hoover was blamed for the Depression, but a lot of it was not his fault. He claimed he was the "receiver" of the situation, not the cause. However, he clearly did not do enough to help ameliorate the suffering Americans endured while he was in office. In fact, for years he was blamed for many problems, whether or not he had anything to do with him. He became an anathema to the public. After he lost his second term election, in subsequent elections, other candidates refused to even appear with him for fear of tainting their reputation and ruining their chances in the race for office. Indeed, Hoover was a man with a sullied reputation, deserved or not.
He was also a sore loser. He spent much of his life after the presidency nursing his grievances, embittered and disgruntled, living in denial of how things really were. He also made no attempt to hide his contempt of Roosevelt after losing to him. In his defense, FDR held the same contempt for Hoover and didn't make amends either.
As I was reading, I found myself pitying Hoover. He has a sad back story. He was orphaned at a young age, raised by an indifferent uncle, had trouble in college at first. He proved himself capable and actually was quite skilled in his field of interest, mining and geology, and showed an affinity towards business management, when it came to mining companies. Within ten years or so of graduating from Stanford, Hoover had made himself his first million. He had a passion for scholarly work and application. He and his wife, Lou Henry Hoover, together translated a previously untranslatable Latin text foundational to geology and mining. He showed himself adept at organizing efforts to help get expats home at the advent of WWI, as well at organizing efforts for relief, especially in Belgium. While he was considered a failure as president, "there was more to his career than the four years in the White House. Hoover... 'fed more people and saved more lives than any other man in history.'"
He also had certain traits that made him very difficult to deal with. He was stubborn and held to his convictions at the cost of victory with concessions. He was not personable. He would have fits when things didn't go his way. He spoke with a monotonous voice, carrying little emotion, and often wouldn't speak at all, when there was nothing necessary to stay. He was inept at small talk and had few friends. While he might have had a strong, analytical mind, he did not have the people skills to translate his analytical skills to successful power, especially in politics. Indeed, if he were growing up today, he might even have been diagnosed as a child having Asperger's/High Functioning Autism.
And so, I feel sorry for him. He was a misunderstood man. He had charitable impulses, yet struggled to apply them consistently (he believed the American people should help each other out instead of the government providing a dole, which works, but only when there are people who are charitable who also have enough to give). He was inconsistent in many areas, and yet stuck to his firm-held beliefs in others. The book states, "what others deplored as rigidity, he saw as steadfastness." That is a hard way for anyone to live their life, president or not.
And now, a few notes on the author's style. It took me longer than it should have to get through this book several months in fact. It was a painfully dull read for me. And yet I persevered. I really didn't want to give up and not give Hoover a chance. I found myself annoyed with the author. He's obviously a very knowledgeable historian. However, he only conveys half that knowledge to his audience, assuming the audience knows much of what he alludes to in his book (such as events and people). Yes, I know, if he took the time to explain everything, the book would be that much longer, but some explanation would have been helpful. Authorial assumptions only get you so far. Ironically, the author felt the need, in one paragraph, to give the definition of disarmament in a parenthetical aside. I am honest when I say that the author could have defined many other words instead.
It suffices me to say, there is a lot more to Hoover than the history books imply, and a little research is helpful to help one attain a more well-rounded perspective on his character.
October 27, 2009
Another read for History class and paper. What can I say... had a hard time plowing through this. Not so much I don't think because it was a bad book but because I quickly became tired of the egotistic manner of this man. Very interesting how he pushed his way through into most things and no one ever seemed to try to stop him. I am amazed that a man with the types of personal problems he apparently had was elected president.
November 30, 2010
Another excellent edition to the American President Series. Leuchtenburg offers a nice summation of the man's extraordinary life and challenging presidency. Hoover is not an easy man to write about. His life is full of contradictions and Leuchtenburg does an admirable job of trying to show the man in full. Obviously, not an easy task due to Hoover's personality.
July 2, 2011
probably a very balanced biography of President Hoover. This succinct book gives a good sense of the broad scope of Hoover's lifework and a nice view of the philosophical conflicts that are playing out still in our national politics. I was amazed at the schizophrenic nature of Hoover's political positions. Xome times he espoused progressive policies, sometimes very cconservative.
November 11, 2014
This series is usually reliable to give a quick portrait of U.S. Presidents -- especially some of the more obscure or lesser known ones. In this biography, the writer's disdain for his subject seemed, at times, to drip from the words, so that by the time I finished I could not be sure I got anything close to a fair picture of Hoover.
January 10, 2015
Very frequently this author would make Hoover sound like he was doing very well after taking office, but then a few paragraphs later would discuss how I'm his initiatives failed. A bit annoying, but overall I think this author was very good and definitely an unbiased portrayal of a very controversial figure.
Read
February 18, 2016Hoover is and isn't who I thought he was. He's also an example of a bitter man who can't accept that he's in a job he is truly not suited for. Another good read.
September 22, 2019
Herbert Hoover is the thirtieth book in The American Presidents series – a biographical series chronicling the Presidents of the United States. William E. Leuchtenburg wrote this particular installment and edited by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr and Sean Wilentz.
Herbert Clark Hoover was an American engineer, businessman, and politician who served as the thirty-first President of the United States from 1929–1933. A member of the Republican Party, he held office during the onset of the Great Depression. Prior to serving as president, Hoover led the Commission for Relief in Belgium, served as the director of the U.S. Food Administration, and served as the third U.S. Secretary of Commerce.
Leuchtenburg points out that while writers describe Hoover as a mining engineer, he was really a promoter and financier who traveled the world and made a fortune. He vaulted to fame after brilliantly organizing relief for the Belgian famine during the First World War. Appointed secretary of commerce in 1920, he operated with a dictatorial manner that infuriated colleagues, but his dynamism and popularity made him a shoo-in for the Republican nomination in 1928.
As president, his political ineptitude offended Congress and discouraged supporters even before the 1929 crash. Afterward, he backed imaginative programs to stimulate the economy, but insisted that direct relief was socialistic and that local governments and charities were doing fine. In fact, they weren't, and this insistence combined with a dour personality made him a widely hated figure.
All in all, Herbert Hoover is a good, albeit brief biography of the thirtieth-first President and it is a good continuation to what would hopefully be a wonderful series of presidential biographies, which I plan to read in the very near future.
Herbert Clark Hoover was an American engineer, businessman, and politician who served as the thirty-first President of the United States from 1929–1933. A member of the Republican Party, he held office during the onset of the Great Depression. Prior to serving as president, Hoover led the Commission for Relief in Belgium, served as the director of the U.S. Food Administration, and served as the third U.S. Secretary of Commerce.
Leuchtenburg points out that while writers describe Hoover as a mining engineer, he was really a promoter and financier who traveled the world and made a fortune. He vaulted to fame after brilliantly organizing relief for the Belgian famine during the First World War. Appointed secretary of commerce in 1920, he operated with a dictatorial manner that infuriated colleagues, but his dynamism and popularity made him a shoo-in for the Republican nomination in 1928.
As president, his political ineptitude offended Congress and discouraged supporters even before the 1929 crash. Afterward, he backed imaginative programs to stimulate the economy, but insisted that direct relief was socialistic and that local governments and charities were doing fine. In fact, they weren't, and this insistence combined with a dour personality made him a widely hated figure.
All in all, Herbert Hoover is a good, albeit brief biography of the thirtieth-first President and it is a good continuation to what would hopefully be a wonderful series of presidential biographies, which I plan to read in the very near future.
October 2, 2019
Perfectly brief overlook into otherwise unknown president. Didn’t know many of his accomplishments that still exist today, yet he is mostly remembered for not being able to stop Great Depression. Perhaps his warnings about socialism were correct as we slip further into bigger government.
May 17, 2020
Herbert Hoover at best is a below average President. William E. Leuchtenburg's American Presidents Series book makes that clear. Hoover was an excellent manager, when he had complete power, and hypocritical as he was against government intervention when someone else did it, but welcomed it when it favored him. Then he would focus on the private initiatives and conveniently forget the government's share of the help. This was true when he fed Europeans and prevented famine during World War I, and during the Russian Civil war. The later creating quite probably the irony that the capitalist helped stabilize the first communist government in the world.
Hoover's rough childhood could of had him be very intune with the poor and downtrodden. His success as an engineer clearly influenced his economic thinking, especially after he became President. The two engineers who have held the Presidency in the 20th Century (Hoover and Carter) have had failed presidencies. Both had difficulties working with Congress, even when it was dominated by their party.
Hoover was a man of his time and I feel he gets shorted when people discuss his humanity, as evidenced by his famine work. The problem is Hoover as President was not a leader. His personality failed to inspire. Hoover was a monotone speaker and seemingly did not engage with the audiences he was given. Hoover's attempts to help the Great Depression failed, due partly to his lack of bold thinking, and his use of statistics that showed economic improvement. He kept telling the American people everything was alright and getting better, when it wasn't and leading to mistrust of his administration.
Hoover's reputation would be largely influenced by Franklin Roosevelt who in essence ran against Hoover 3 times as he kept Hoover's name alive each of his first 3 elections. The hatred the men had for each other never eased and it could be argued got worse through the years, especially as Roosevelt kept his name in the public for a comparison.
Leuchtenburg's book here is a nice short biography of the 31st PResident. He tries to be fair to Hoover and does a good job of doing it. Pointing out how favorable biographies portray him. To me there are Presidents who have bad luck and end up paying for the decisions of previous administrations. Nixon, with all the revelations of how he used power (IRS auditing political enemies), without the revelations mentioning his predecessors all the way to FDR did the same things. Hoover is the same. He paid for the poor economic decisions of Harding and Coolidge. The unrestrained capitalism doomed Hoover. In a way he was prescient when he gave one of his most memorable quotes, "The only thing wrong with capitalism is the capitalists. They're too damn greedy."
Hoover's rough childhood could of had him be very intune with the poor and downtrodden. His success as an engineer clearly influenced his economic thinking, especially after he became President. The two engineers who have held the Presidency in the 20th Century (Hoover and Carter) have had failed presidencies. Both had difficulties working with Congress, even when it was dominated by their party.
Hoover was a man of his time and I feel he gets shorted when people discuss his humanity, as evidenced by his famine work. The problem is Hoover as President was not a leader. His personality failed to inspire. Hoover was a monotone speaker and seemingly did not engage with the audiences he was given. Hoover's attempts to help the Great Depression failed, due partly to his lack of bold thinking, and his use of statistics that showed economic improvement. He kept telling the American people everything was alright and getting better, when it wasn't and leading to mistrust of his administration.
Hoover's reputation would be largely influenced by Franklin Roosevelt who in essence ran against Hoover 3 times as he kept Hoover's name alive each of his first 3 elections. The hatred the men had for each other never eased and it could be argued got worse through the years, especially as Roosevelt kept his name in the public for a comparison.
Leuchtenburg's book here is a nice short biography of the 31st PResident. He tries to be fair to Hoover and does a good job of doing it. Pointing out how favorable biographies portray him. To me there are Presidents who have bad luck and end up paying for the decisions of previous administrations. Nixon, with all the revelations of how he used power (IRS auditing political enemies), without the revelations mentioning his predecessors all the way to FDR did the same things. Hoover is the same. He paid for the poor economic decisions of Harding and Coolidge. The unrestrained capitalism doomed Hoover. In a way he was prescient when he gave one of his most memorable quotes, "The only thing wrong with capitalism is the capitalists. They're too damn greedy."
June 4, 2016
After visiting the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Boyhood Home in West Branch, Iowa, I found myself wanting to know more about this enigmatic president. In 2012, The Washington Post published a list of the best biographies of all the American Presidents. They cited Herbert Hoover by William E. Leuchtenburg as the book to read on the 31st President. Leuchtenburg is a retired professor of history from University of North Carolina a Chapel Hill and is considered a leading scholar on Franklin Roosevelt, so it's no surprise that this is not a very kind treatment of Hoover.
Leuchtenburg presents Hoover as having a sharp business mind but not a sharp intellect, as being stubborn and immovable once he took a position, and as seriously lacking charisma. While Hoover did well when he could dictate procedures, he did not work well with Congress and had no feel for diplomacy. The author quotes acquaintances who said Hoover typically spoke "only in chill monosyllables." He wasn't one to greet staff members. He worked seven days a week, Sunday being no exception. Throughout the initial years of the Great Depression, he refused to acknowledge the severity of the crash, and even when faced with evidence of suffering, he minimized the problem.
In the end, Leuchtenburg notes, "The Oval Office requires more than dedication and managerial skills, both of which [Hoover] had in abundance." However, the author also concedes, "There was more to his career than the four years in the White House. Hoover, an associate told the press, 'fed more people and saved more lives than any other man in history.'"
Hoover is a fascinating man, and my curiosity about this president isn't sated yet.
Leuchtenburg presents Hoover as having a sharp business mind but not a sharp intellect, as being stubborn and immovable once he took a position, and as seriously lacking charisma. While Hoover did well when he could dictate procedures, he did not work well with Congress and had no feel for diplomacy. The author quotes acquaintances who said Hoover typically spoke "only in chill monosyllables." He wasn't one to greet staff members. He worked seven days a week, Sunday being no exception. Throughout the initial years of the Great Depression, he refused to acknowledge the severity of the crash, and even when faced with evidence of suffering, he minimized the problem.
In the end, Leuchtenburg notes, "The Oval Office requires more than dedication and managerial skills, both of which [Hoover] had in abundance." However, the author also concedes, "There was more to his career than the four years in the White House. Hoover, an associate told the press, 'fed more people and saved more lives than any other man in history.'"
Hoover is a fascinating man, and my curiosity about this president isn't sated yet.
February 26, 2017
Herbert Hoover has widely been regarded as one of the worst Presidents in U.S. History. When one thinks of the name "Hoover", the images of the Great Depression and its "Hoovervilles" (villages of homeless, out of work U.S. citizens) immediately spring to mind. Though Hoover roundly deserves his place near the bottom of the Presidents list, this book at least gives him a fair shake and explains exactly what his shortcomings were.
What I liked about this installment in this series was that the author did indeed find areas in which Hoover was a success. He was a true business man and manager at heart, and (during both the first and second World Wars) helped starving individuals all across the globe with his revolutionary famine relief programs. He was also wary of "big government" and feared turning the U.S. into a "nanny state" under his watch.
At the same time, though, the author also points out the reasons why Hoover was generally a failure in the Oval Office. He was incredibly stubborn (never relenting defeat even in the face of overwhelming evidence), could easily be perceived as heartless due to his business-minded approach to running the country, and was wildly inconsistent in his approach to government (e.g. despite being "anti-government" he sure used a lot of federal funds for his programs!). On the personal side, he was very much on the grouchy side, showing very little outward compassion or personality at any time.
Overall, then, this is a very revealing installment in the American Presidents series. I really hadn't know anything about the Hoover administration going into the read, but now I feel as if I have a much better handle on why he is perceived as he is.
What I liked about this installment in this series was that the author did indeed find areas in which Hoover was a success. He was a true business man and manager at heart, and (during both the first and second World Wars) helped starving individuals all across the globe with his revolutionary famine relief programs. He was also wary of "big government" and feared turning the U.S. into a "nanny state" under his watch.
At the same time, though, the author also points out the reasons why Hoover was generally a failure in the Oval Office. He was incredibly stubborn (never relenting defeat even in the face of overwhelming evidence), could easily be perceived as heartless due to his business-minded approach to running the country, and was wildly inconsistent in his approach to government (e.g. despite being "anti-government" he sure used a lot of federal funds for his programs!). On the personal side, he was very much on the grouchy side, showing very little outward compassion or personality at any time.
Overall, then, this is a very revealing installment in the American Presidents series. I really hadn't know anything about the Hoover administration going into the read, but now I feel as if I have a much better handle on why he is perceived as he is.
December 2, 2012
A brief, balanced biography of the President who presided over one of the worst crises of our country, the Great Depression. The author, William Leuchtenburg traces his upbringing, Hoover was orphaned as a young boy in Iowa and was eventually sent to live in Oregon with an unfeeling uncle and economic hardship. While Hoover ends up going to Stanford at its beginning which opens up great opportunity, this book paints a picture that Hoover's childhood affected him his whole life, that he always had to watch out for himself, could not give others credit, could not have an open mind to other's ideas or have the self reflection that he could be wrong on something. And it left him with a hard heart that ill served him while President during the depression
Hoover's intelligence, drive and work ethic gave him professional and financial success early in life which led to an outstanding job leading relief and food efforts in World War I. His professional success continued as Secretary of Commerce in the 1920s which led to being elected President in 1928.
As President he proved inflexible in responding to the economic depression. His need to give himself credit for his relief efforts in World War I and as Secretary of Commerce caused him not to give proper credit to his use of government action and money in those efforts, which crippled him in his inadequate response to the economic forces of the depression. His apparent hard outlook on life seemed to immunize him from the depression's effects on people, his refusal to reconsider whether his initial approaches were wrong prevented him from reversing a wrong course in that difficult, challenging time
Hoover's intelligence, drive and work ethic gave him professional and financial success early in life which led to an outstanding job leading relief and food efforts in World War I. His professional success continued as Secretary of Commerce in the 1920s which led to being elected President in 1928.
As President he proved inflexible in responding to the economic depression. His need to give himself credit for his relief efforts in World War I and as Secretary of Commerce caused him not to give proper credit to his use of government action and money in those efforts, which crippled him in his inadequate response to the economic forces of the depression. His apparent hard outlook on life seemed to immunize him from the depression's effects on people, his refusal to reconsider whether his initial approaches were wrong prevented him from reversing a wrong course in that difficult, challenging time
December 5, 2015
I often find comfort in reading Presidential biographies - or American history in general. I realize that while things seem completely out of control and untenable right now, historically speaking, not a lot has changed. The news media has always had factions that were partisan and controlled by political parties. Politicians were always controlled by special interests. And for hundreds of years, we've managed to survive.
However, I found no comfort in Herbert Hoover's biography given the current political climate. Here's a man who created his own narrative and ignored reality - until he started to believe his own bullshit. And then he became the President by convincing people that his BS was true, stayed true to the false narrative he had bought into, altered statistics and facts to fit his bullshit narrative, and never - to the day he died - realized that he was full of shit all along.
Yes, this is not a review of the book, but rather of the man himself. I just needed to put that out there. The biography is pretty good for a short, quick read. I may look for a more detailed treatment of Hoover, because his complete lack of a grasp on reality intrigues me.
However, I found no comfort in Herbert Hoover's biography given the current political climate. Here's a man who created his own narrative and ignored reality - until he started to believe his own bullshit. And then he became the President by convincing people that his BS was true, stayed true to the false narrative he had bought into, altered statistics and facts to fit his bullshit narrative, and never - to the day he died - realized that he was full of shit all along.
Yes, this is not a review of the book, but rather of the man himself. I just needed to put that out there. The biography is pretty good for a short, quick read. I may look for a more detailed treatment of Hoover, because his complete lack of a grasp on reality intrigues me.
May 12, 2017
History really does not repeat itself however it does provide many parallels for the present. President Hoover is an interesting person and this short biography provides enough background to establish that point. What I find to be of interest for the current situation is that Hoover was an "... audacious manipulator...Sometimes he told outright lies..."(Hoover, p.30). He did not like anyone to disagree with him. "Hoover circulated misinformation and, when he was caught in a lie, he jiggled figures to place the blame on someone else" (Hoover, p. 38). So Sad! He didn't like reporters because they were critical of him. "To cater to southern whites, he denied that he opposed Jim Crow; and ignored an appeal to denounce the Ku Klux Klan ( the Democrats were far worse) ( Hoover, p. 75). He had demonstrated greatness and compassion but squandered it during his Administration through his pettiness. He firmly believed that the Government should not be involved in assisting individuals, one should depend on one's neighbors and charitable organizations for that assistance. Sound familiar?
This is an interesting book and a good read!
This is an interesting book and a good read!
January 5, 2017
An engineer who earned world-wide recognition for his heroic efforts to feed Europe during and after World War I. As a private citizen he earned millions of dollars and was successful in almost everything he tried. However, his lifelong hatred for the government, except to allow private enterprise to happen, left him unequipped for the great depression and unwilling to change. While he saved Europeans from starvation using primarily using government supplied dollars, he was unwilling to spend any government money to assist starving U.S. citizens or failing U.S. companies and banks. His apparent inability to help, or even demonstrate that he cared led Roosevelt into office in 1932 who then implemented the types of programs Hoover hated. While he was not the cause of the Great Depression, his response to it (or lack of response) will forever leave him with a failed presidency. The stain of his failure often leads us to overlook the great and meaningful work he did before taking the oath of office.
June 4, 2012
My hat's off to William Leuchtenburg for putting together a very readable, lucid, and interesting biography of an amazingly horrible president. Although I agree with Hoover's stance against government enlargement and I respect the amount of charitable work he accomplished in his life, I was quite shocked by Hoover's incompetence and lack of vision as President of the United States and found hardly anything admirable about the man. He was harsh, antisocial, completely lacked any sort of compassion of empathy, unable to admit failure, dishonest, egocentric, stubborn, and a terrible husband and father. I'm sure I left out many other distasteful qualities. BUT, he did work hard, and it is amazing what he accomplished in his life. Probably the most spectacular feat in his life was feeding 9,000,000 Europeans daily in the post-World-War-II international food shortage.
So, anyways, if you must read about Herbert Hoover, this is probably the bio to pick.
So, anyways, if you must read about Herbert Hoover, this is probably the bio to pick.
August 3, 2012
This is a rather slim book which manages to hit all of the high (and low) points of the life of Herbert Hoover. Here is a man who was one of the most popular men on the planet, who became a US president, and yet ended his career in virtual disgrace. A successful mining engineer who headed an international relief effort which saved millions of Europeans from starvation, and a few years later saved thousands of Americans in a terrible flood of the Mississippi river in 1927. Although, the Great Depression sank his political and civic fortunes, and although he was in no way directly responsible, his inability to take command of the situation will be his sad legacy.
I thought that this campaign poster for FDR was especially revealing:
"VOTE FOR ROOSEVELT, MAKE IT UNANIMOUS"
The book is just long enough to keep you interested in this multifaceted historical figure, but doesn't bog down with minutia that is the bane of many historical biographies.
I thought that this campaign poster for FDR was especially revealing:
"VOTE FOR ROOSEVELT, MAKE IT UNANIMOUS"
The book is just long enough to keep you interested in this multifaceted historical figure, but doesn't bog down with minutia that is the bane of many historical biographies.
August 8, 2013
Even after reading Leuchtenburg's book, Hoover remains a puzzle.
On the one hand, he helped millions in the world through a food crusade during the first World War and on the other, he fired men from mining jobs and hired others at lower pay rates.
Only the most naive will have to be reminded he was the United States president at the beginning of the Great Depression.
Hoover was good at organization, but was a boring public speaker. People who praised him for his work disliked him for his taciturn personality. If he made a mistake or something he tried to do went wrong, he blamed others.
While he was known for feeding vast numbers of people in the world, he did not lift a hand to help Americans during the Depression and called those efforts "socialistic." It didn't seem to cross his mind that a hand up and a chance at opportunity would take anyone off the streets and into work where they could support families and contribute to their society.
On the one hand, he helped millions in the world through a food crusade during the first World War and on the other, he fired men from mining jobs and hired others at lower pay rates.
Only the most naive will have to be reminded he was the United States president at the beginning of the Great Depression.
Hoover was good at organization, but was a boring public speaker. People who praised him for his work disliked him for his taciturn personality. If he made a mistake or something he tried to do went wrong, he blamed others.
While he was known for feeding vast numbers of people in the world, he did not lift a hand to help Americans during the Depression and called those efforts "socialistic." It didn't seem to cross his mind that a hand up and a chance at opportunity would take anyone off the streets and into work where they could support families and contribute to their society.
December 14, 2016
Short but informative general biography on Herbert Hoover, the 31st President of the United States. This bio covers the entirety of Hoover's life, but goes into greater detail on his professional life leading up to and during his one-term as President. The author, William Leuchtenburg divides Hoover's presidency into three chapters, dedicating a chapter solely to Hoover's actions during the Great Depression.
"Hoover, obituaries dutifully recorded, was almost universally judged to have been a failed president - an ineluctable reminder that the Oval Office requires more than dedication and managerial skills, both of which he had in abundance. But there was more to his career than the four years in the White House. Hoover, an associate told the press, 'fed more people and saved more lives than any other man in history.'" - William Leuchtenburg
"The only trouble with capitalism is capitalists," Herbert Hoover told the columnist Mark Sullivan. "They're too damn greedy (P 148)."
"Hoover, obituaries dutifully recorded, was almost universally judged to have been a failed president - an ineluctable reminder that the Oval Office requires more than dedication and managerial skills, both of which he had in abundance. But there was more to his career than the four years in the White House. Hoover, an associate told the press, 'fed more people and saved more lives than any other man in history.'" - William Leuchtenburg
"The only trouble with capitalism is capitalists," Herbert Hoover told the columnist Mark Sullivan. "They're too damn greedy (P 148)."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews