For most Americans, the political history of the Gilded Age is a period where the country was governed by a succession of indistinguishably bearded presidents who did nothing. Sandwiched as it is between the drama of the Civil War period and the revolution in government brought about during the Progressive Era, it often tends to be overshadowed and overlooked, a period where the dominance of laissez-faire attitudes meant that little of significance took place. In this short little book, Charles W. Calhoun demolishes such misconceptions, showing the period to be one that both wrestled with important questions left over from the Civil War and set the stage for many of the transformations that were to follow.

Calhoun begins his study with the 1868 presidential election. Though this was the first presidential election after the Civil War, the issues created by the conflict dominated the campaign, particularly the issue of black suffrage. Republicans proved effective at rallying voters outside the South by “waving the bloody shirt,” or rallying voters to defending the results against the efforts by Democrats to reverse them. Calhoun sees this as reflective of the political philosophies that characterized the political parties in this period, with the Republicans believing that the federal government could play a positive role in national government, while the Democrats argued for greater deference to state and local governments.

This clash of philosophical approaches was reflected not just in contrasting views on the issue of black suffrage, but in economic policy as well. Calhoun sees the Republicans in the 1870s as facing the question of whether to emphasize the efforts to preserve black suffrage or their use of tariffs and other policies to encourage national economic development. The economic depression of the period helped fuel an emphasis on the latter issue, and protecting the rights of African Americans to vote receded as an issue for the party as the century came to an end. Calhoun emphasizes the role of African American voter suppression as key to both the Democratic dominance of the South during this period and the narrowness of voting totals in national elections. By the 1890s, however, the Republicans use of such issues as the gold standard cemented a political dominance that would last for a generation, enshrining a more active role for the federal government in national life as a result.

Concise and insightful, Calhoun’s book offers a stimulating introduction to American politics in the Gilded Age. Though his focus is on the presidency, his inclusion of Congressional and gubernatorial elections offers a broad overall portrait of the ebbs and flows of party fortunes and how they reflected the broader attitudes of the electorate. The result is a superb overview that serves as an excellent starting point for anyone seeking to learn more about this underappreciated era in American political history. ( )

Ever since I read Sean Wilentz's The Rise of American Democracy I have been waiting for a book of equal detail for the gilded age and progressive era, a time frame that is more-or-less my professional focus. I doubt that such book will ever be written. No publisher would risk such a fat tome on such a small audience. The last large book covering the gilded age was probably H.W. Morgan's From Hayes to McKinley. Since then there have been few books covering only the politics of the Gilded Age and they have lacked the detail and breadth of Wilentz's similar treatment of the early period. Richard Cherney's American Politics in the Gilded Age springs to mind, but that was published in 1997. Therefore, I was very excited to see that Charles Calhoun recently wrote a general survey of the political history of the period entitled Bloody Shirt to Full Dinner Pail. As no brick and mortar bookstore carried it, I ordered Calhoun's book online.

Overall I really liked Calhoun's treatment of the era. He is something of a revisionist on Ulysses Grant, a group I count myself standing among. Earlier historians, such as Allan Nevins, were overly influenced by their mugwump sources and took a reflexively anti-Grant position. Nevins's classic biography of of Grant's Secretary of State Hamilton Fish is an excellent example of this historiographical position. In my opinion these historians (and I have a lot of respect for Nevins) honed in too much on the Henry Adams talking points about Grant and ignored some of his more positive traits, such as his phenomenal ability to read public opinion, a point Calhoun gives the former general significant credit. Calhoun also is critical (although not overtly) of Grover Cleveland, a figure revered by the aforementioned Nevins. Cleveland liked to portray himself as a new type of politician who placed the needs of the people over those of his party. In fact, Cleveland's record is not as good as he believed. He made the normal patronage compromises other politicians made. In addition, his second term was a total disaster. Herbert Hoover did a much better job fighting the Great Depression than Cleveland did of the early economic catastrophe.

Calhoun does illustrate the unintended consequences of legislation during the era. Two cases illustrate this quite well. The Pendleton Act, which created a professional civil service a limited patronage appointments, drove political parties to seek more money outside the system from special interest groups. The Lodge Force Bill, which was supposed to make it harder to illegally prevent against African Americans in the south from voting led white regimes in the former confederacy to legally restrict the franchise through poll taxes, literacy tests, and other Jim Crow mechanisms.

Although I really liked this book I have three criticisms. First, it is way too short, less than 200 pages of text. Perhaps the publisher wanted it short and sweet, but for someone hungering for detail, this book did not deliver. Second, this brevity lead to some short cuts which raises questions by the reader. For example, when covering the 1893 depression Calhoun mentions that foreign investors panicked over the future of the United States currency and cashed in their bonds for gold, leading to a gold drain. However, there is no explanation as to why Europeans would have become so concerned about the future of the American currency. There are a several points like this in the book.

From my blog: http://gregshistoryblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/charles-calhoun-bloody-shirt-to-ful... ( )

Calhoun offers the argument that the Gilded Age was not one of rampant corruption and boring politics. The Gilded Age is too often a bump between the Civil War and the Progressive Era, but Calhoun contends the period is a vibrant and volatile time in American politics.

Here we see the struggle between Republicans and Democrats for supremacy in American political life. We see the vacillations of both parties on the gold/silver issue. We see the Democrats (especially in the South) run roughshod over the rights of African Americans, while the Republicans stood by objecting, more softly with each passing year, and doing little to help. We see the rise of the foreign policy as an important issue as the US came out as a world power. We see the constant bickering over who was responsible for economic upturns and downturns.

One who thinks that politics in the late 20th century and early 21st century have degenerated from more lofty practices of the past needs to read this book for an education. Politics has always been dirty business. For instance, in 1888, Republicans dug up dirt on Grover Cleveland's illegitimate child.

Although Calhoun does not draw definite parallels between then and now, one can see that much of the political battle of today is very similar to the political battles of the Gilded Age. ( )