The Accidental President: Chester A. Arthur

by John M. Pafford

When he was nominated as vice president on the 1880 Republican ticket, Chester Alan Arthur had never held elected office. Expectations of him—or of the vice presidential office—were virtually non-existant. Years earlier in 1839, Daniel Webster had turned down the vice presidency with the quip, "I do not propose to be buried until I am dead."

But six months into President James Garfield's term, he was assassinated—and the unknown vice president, Chester Arthur, became the most powerful man in America.

This in-depth biography of Chester Arthur is a fascinating look at a man who, thrust unexpectedly into the highest political office, exceeded expectations and left a lasting mark on history, despite being diagnosed with a debilitating illness shortly after assuming the presidency.

Genres: Biography, Presidents, History, Nonfiction, American History

256 pages, Hardcover

Published September 17, 2019

Reviews

[Sweeney Hughes]

An okay account of the life and times of Arthur, though it probably focusses a bit much on the latter. This broader context is not unimportant, but it feels like it comes at the expense of a more detailed look at Arthur himself (or even reasoned speculation about that we don't know of him), which is a shame. I'd posit that any nerd going out of their way to read a book about (arguably) the most obscure US president would probably already have a reasonable understanding of the more notable surrounding events.

[Emily]

This is a quite dry, quick, very surface level overview of Arthur while also casting its net wide to describe Gilded Age and Progressive Era America. However, the author doesn’t show how his discussions of cultural and religious topics, for example, relate to Arthur’s presidency or life.

I just needed a broad overview of Arthur’s life, so this did the trick, but it was remarkably mediocre.

[Allison Anderson Armstrong]

This book didn't inspire much admiration in President Chester Arthur, but it was interesting enough to read more about a president I knew nothing about. Writing at times was a bit tangential but overall, ok. Reads like a slightly interesting history paper.

[James Schneider]

I started this book very curious to learn about an obscure, lesser known president. I finished it with the same sentiments.

[Billy Pritchard]

This may be the worst history book I've read since finishing the PhD a decade ago. Pafford clearly struggled to find enough information to weave a compelling biography of Arthur. The vast majority of this book is a rundown of other things going on in 1870s and 1880s America. These events do not really give context to Arthur's life and political career. Instead of adding depth to Arthur's story, Arthur's life is often sprinkled on top of what reads at many times like a post-Civil War textbook narrative. 3 of the largest chapters deal with late 19th century society, foreign policy (that had little to do with Arthur's administration), and a pedantic chapter about beefing up the US Navy.

Just a pretty uninspiring biography of a rather uninspiring president it seems.

[J. Michael Smith]

I've read several books on our 21st president, and this is the one I'd least recommend. Pafford takes a sympathetic approach to Arthur, but his information is thin and more than half the book is more about Arthur's times rather than Arthur himself. In fact, Pafford seems more interested in giving a general history of the United States from the time of the Civil War to Theodore Roosevelt than in telling us about Arthur.

Granted that original sources about Arthur are slim, given that he ordered all his private and official papers burned a few days before his death. But there are many documents that survive that are never mentioned by Pafford, such as the letters sent to him by Julia Sand (a woman in New York who wrote to him about his reputation for corruption and urged him to rise above that reputation as president.) There are also many newspaper articles Pafford could have gleaned in his work, specific to Arthur and his presidency.

For me personally, Pafford is irritating because he gives a number of personal opinions that are condescending to women, blacks, and Chinese. He is more an apologist for how politicians in the late 1800s treated various "outsiders" than he is seeing the bigger picture of how systems wasted so much human capital. Pafford also lets his religious beliefs get in the way of his historical objectivity, as he has a concept, mentioned several times, of "biblical religion," as though there is only one proper way (his way) to interpret scriptures. This comes up in several places as he tries to describe changes occurring in American religious history in the early 20th century. This is odd since it has nothing to do with Chester Arthur, his presidency, or even issues that were relevant to him.

[Du]

Interestingly, this book had more about the era Arthur was President in, then about his presidency. He fell into it, and was a presence, but didn't lead the country per say and certainly was not afforded the grandeur of the way we see Presidents today. Pretty succinct read and enjoyable, but not noteworthy.

[Steven Yoder]

This really should have been called Chester Arthur and his times because Arthur is not really in the book that much. It is not completely the author's fault, however, because as he neared death, Arthur asked his son to burn all of his letters and papers. About 90% was destroyed. There was about one love letter to his wife and very little else. Almost all of this book is written from secondary sources. Large parts of this book consists of events and trends and an occasional mention of what Arthur thought about the issue or the fact that the issue didn't make a big impact during Arthur's term. Pafford, the author, does not include the Julia Sand correspondence during the time Garfield lay dying when she encouraged Arthur to change his machine politics reputation and become a better man. Maybe he thought it wasn't really that influential in his life. I really hope there is a better biography of Arthur out there somewhere.

[Patrick Martin]

I was disappointed with this book. Of course I knew it was short however I could not be aware of the reason. It was a quick easy read that painted Arthur has an honest man who came up in a corrupt system. He was obviously smart and had a long term view however I have to agree with other readers in that there is a major lack of substance to the book.

The book reads like it was written as an overview of President Arthur for a Junior High history class. It also felt like half the book was discussing the times but not mentioning the President's thoughts or actions in those times.

I didn't see a lot of books on Arthur when looking but there has to be better out there. I have read a large number of Presidential biographies and I believe this was the worst one I've read. Your time would be better spent if you found another option to this book.

[Writemoves]

I agree with comments made by other reviewers that the book was more about the times and the events during Chester Arthur’s presidency then about Arthur and how he handled the presidency. There were no major political crises or major world events that Arthur had to confront. He rebuilt the navy and made efforts to clean up the civil service. It was interesting that he had to make decisions about Chinese immigration. Reminds me of the current situation with Mexican immigration into the United States.

Arthur had significant health issues that he was able to overcome while president. He died shortly after he left office. Relatively thin book, a little over 180 pages. Arthur seem to run a caretaker Administration. No major achievements… No major errors.

[Jason dorschner]

As some have said below, this book offers nearly nothing of note in terms of Arthur and his Presidency. More often than not, it meanders into random historical events that happened during his tenure, but without giving any insight as to how they impacted Arthur or what it meant for his time in office.

As the author notes, Arthur burned many of his personal notes and writings shortly before his death and did not have a career in politics prior to his appointment to Vice President, which likely made it harder to write about him. Still, I really can’t recommend this book over a ten-minute skimming of Arthur’s Wikipedia entry.

[Jquick99]

Skip this audiobook. This should really be less than an hour long. There is a lot of general history (Indian wars, women’s voting….) and then a sentence re Arthur and the topic.

Can’t believe the author didn’t mention that Arthur cried when learning President Garfield had passed, and doesn’t even mention the woman who wrote him many letters, encouraging him to rise up to be a better man and prove everyone wrong re his capabilities.

[David Grabitske]

The book reminded me of much I knew about Chester Alan Arthur, and why I think he’s underrated. He certainly passed the Civil Service Act that allowed the United States to effectively fight the World Wars to come. What I hadn’t realized was how instrumental he was in updating the navy. In that regard I will have to delve more as clearly there was something in the water regarding navies that Teddy Roosevelt built on.

[Tom Frankman]

It is extremely challenging to write a book about a historical figure who had his private papers burned at the end of his life. Still, the book is organized curiously. Part of the time, it seems to be about America of the 1880s, part of the time it is about Arthur. That said, Mr. Pafford has written more books than I have.

[Erin]

Pretty light on content and went from exploring Arthur’s political career and presidency to describing other newsworthy events taking place at the same time and no rhyme or reason to the focal shift.

[Russell Reidelberger]

1 Star=DNF

I made it up to his presidency and was underwhelmed and uninterested. It was even worse that he claimed the civil war was all about economic protectionalism.

[Mich]

This is a relatively short biography of Chester Allen author possibly because his tenure was also short and not particularly interesting.

[Andy Hill]

Probably ok as a supplement to a Jr. High or High School history course on the Presidents or Gilded Age, but not a particularly in depth scholarly work.

[Ellen Switzer]

Arthur served as VP to James A. Garfield, assuming the presidency after his assassination and finishing out that term. He suffered many health ailments which diminished his ability to lead and caused him to not secure a nomination for the following election season. He is credited with the rebirth of the U.S. Navy, exponentially increasing American power on a world scale. He was anti Chinese immigration, signing a 10 year ban, but is most demerited for his inability to manage the federal budget, allowing growth in surplus.

[Gregory]

The author over reaches in his attempt to frame Arthur as a good president who heroically overcame his background. This book leaves some stuff out, while there are also sections or even chapters in which Arthur is hardly mentioned at all.

[Connor Dodd]

Read like a long form history paper. Super boring but I guess I learned stuff