Hanna: Maker of Presidents
Introduction:
President McKinley was elected to the presidency in the year 1897, and was assassinated in 1901. He became president in a critical time, and managed to defeat a popularly supported silverite candidate, by the name of William Jennings Bryan. However, McKinley owes a large part of his victory to one man, Marcus Alonzo Hanna. After reading briefly about Hanna in the American Pageant, I developed an interest in the so called, “president maker.”
Who was Hanna?
The textbook gives very little information about Hanna, telling us that he was an industrialist, had intimate feelings for McKinley, and was a Hamiltonian. However, the true character and life of Marcus Alonzo Hanna goes far deeper. Hanna was a prosperous industrialist, owning an incredibly rich Cleveland coal and iron enterprise. Like Morgan and Vanderbilt, he soon expanded into other industries, that helped to add to his immense fortune. Hanna, a firm Hamiltonian and Republican, believed that the prosperity of the Republican party depended on business, a laissez faire economy, and a helpful government. Hanna, once getting his friend into the presidency, soon became interested in politics himself, and became a senator until his death.
What was the significance of Hanna?
Hanna was the first in a long line of “political kingmakers,” or a person who is responsible for getting someone into a position of power through their own influence. Hanna, besides giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to McKinley’s campaign, was also responsible for managing the first costly campaign. McKinley’s total budget, or war chest, at the time was around 3.5 million dollars, and to put that in comparison in today’s time, today’s political organizations and other groups spend around 5 billion dollars for their candidate. Prior to the election of 1896, no candidate had ever amassed such a war chest, and through Hanna’s successful running of it, politicians would be spending more and more on their campaigns. Additionally, Hanna was able to use his vast influence and resources to create posters, pamphlets, and other forms of propaganda in favor of McKinley and against Bryan. According to the textbook, McKinley’s campaign had both money and mud. Finally, Hanna represented the key perception of big businesses at the time, that they had too much power and too much influence in the government. The political bosses brought their local regions into a new realm of corruption, famous industrialists like Morgan were able to save the federal government on more than one occasion, and Hanna, and those like him, were able to put their friends in power to further themselves.
Conclusion:
Whatever one makes of Hanna, it is apparent that he is a key historical figure. Additionally, Hanna represented the epitome of the power big business had, and set the stage for a long dynasty of political campaign norms.
Source:
American Pageant, 11th Edition
I think it's interesting that a man such as Hanna who represented the way that big business had too much control over the government managed to have his candidate elected to presidency when the people's perception of what he represented was not good. The majority of the population were people who had a reason to be against big business, but a president who was supported and funded by big business could still become president, which I find curious. Also, I remember in class when we talked about Jeffersonians vs. Hamiltonians back when political parties were forming and back then, Jeffersonians were considered "Republicans," and a hundred years later the term had flipped to mean something completely different so that Hanna could be a Republican AND a Hamiltonian. I also read on Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mark-Hanna) that McKinley helped fulfill Hanna's lifelong dream of being on the Senate, so I wonder if Hanna was just using McKinley to benefit himself and that was his plan all along. Finally, I enjoyed that you took the textbook reading further and came to your own conclusion about Hanna.
ReplyDeleteGood job Sohail. I agree with all that Anuja posted above, I think the ideas of big business influencing politics and questioning Hanna's true motives are all extremely interesting to think about. In addition, I also think it was a good idea to point out the that while in history we learn about the President, we don't get as much information about the person behind the leader and the one influencing his decisions. For that reason, I thought it was very great choice to pick a "kingmaker" so we get more information on his desires and his thought process. I also would consider asking the question, why didn't Hanna run for president himself?
ReplyDeleteReally interesting post. I feel like it is easy to consider Hanna as corrupt for being a kingmaker, but in a sense is big business controlling government really a bad thing? After all, the United States is equally made up of its economy as its citizens, so should't big business have an important role in government? Obviously this is not an obvious question and is controversial. I wonder if there have been others since Hanna who have had such a significant impact on American elections.
ReplyDelete