Paul W. Glad (–2018)

For a President hardly anyone talks about, William McKinley gets a lot of discussion from historians. Even political advisor Karl Rove has written about how he shaped the modern Republican Party. (Of course, Rove wrote that before Donald Trump....) And, of course, it all started with his election in 1896 -- an election that was the result of one of the most comprehensive, methodical, long-planned campaigns on record to that time. McKinley didn't win the Presidency, he surrounded it on all sides then advanced on all fronts.

Which is part of the problem. I have three books about the Election of 1896, plus a biography of McKinley, and they give a lot of nuts and bolts about the election -- how McKinley worked to earn the Convention votes of this, that, or the other state; how he determined which states he would win and which he wouldn't and which were up for grabs; the negotiations he made. But they're so methodical that they feel like a week-long tramp through flat plains with nothing to see except more plains. They don't give the feel of the era -- the fears left over from the Panic of 1896, the deep economic problems faced by Western farmers, the deep-set anger that flamed the Populist movement.

And that is, surely, where the Election of 1896 is most important. The Populists had been big in 1892: 9% of the popular vote, and a handful of electoral votes; in certain parliamentary systems, they would actually have had the balance of power between the Republicans and Democrats. As late as 1894, they thought they had a genuine chance to change the two party system. And I incline to think they were right.

And then came Free Silver, and the Cross of Gold, and William Jennings Bryan's surprise run to the Democratic nomination. The Populists had a big Silver wing, so they saw little choice but to follow him (though they nominated their own vice presidential candidate), and it destroyed them. And McKinley won in 1896, and fought with Spain, and was re-elected, and -- who knows, maybe Rove was right, and he put the Republican Party on its course. Certainly he started the Republican party on the path that made it the conservative party and the Democrats the liberals, although that didn't become set in stone for another three decades and more.

And, somehow, that doesn't come out in the other histories. This is a relatively thin book, but it gives a feeling for the poor farmers and the desperate quest for lower interest rates. For the workers with no industrial protections. For the divide between Northeast and Midwest and South. And, of course, it gives you the result of the election. It's a fairly old book, now, so our perspective on things has changed a lot -- we have our own Populist movement now, and in many ways it's even more dangerous than the one in 1896, which mixed good ideas with bad. You'll need to read it in the light of the changes since it was written. But if you have an interest in this period at all, by all means do read it.… (plus d'informations)