The Uncrowned King: The Sensational Rise of William Randolph Hearst (29 page)
Read The Uncrowned King: The Sensational Rise of William Randolph Hearst Online
Authors: Kenneth Whyte
BOOK: The Uncrowned King: The Sensational Rise of William Randolph Hearst
7.6Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Davenport’s cartoons ran a few times a week, usually on inside pages, but nothing in any paper came close to matching their impact. Like Lewis’s pieces, they were widely reprinted and circulated as Democratic campaign materials, and Hanna couldn’t appear anywhere without fielding unwanted questions about the cartoons. There were rumors of a late-night meeting between artist and subject in which Hanna attempted to induce Davenport to drop the plaid. Hanna apparently considered suing the
Journal
and wrote a letter of protest to Hearst, to no avail. Perhaps the best testament to the power of Davenport’s caricature and the speed with which it took hold was an article in Pulitzer’s
World
less than two months after the St. Louis convention. Its headline was “How Mark Hanna Really Looks”:
Journal
and wrote a letter of protest to Hearst, to no avail. Perhaps the best testament to the power of Davenport’s caricature and the speed with which it took hold was an article in Pulitzer’s
World
less than two months after the St. Louis convention. Its headline was “How Mark Hanna Really Looks”:
When men, especially politicians, become famous they are subjects for caricaturists; but usually men become famous by slow degrees and the public has a chance to become familiar with their exact features through authentic likenesses of them published from time to time during their ascent of the ladder of fame. Mark Hanna, however, bounded into national prominence so quickly that the caricaturists got in their work ahead of the portrait artists. The consequence is that the masses of the people have come to know him as the caricaturists represent him, not as he is. This would not be so bad if caricaturists of the present day had not become so enslaved to grotesque Aubrey Beardsleyism as to try to outdo each other in exaggeration. Each one appears to have tried to go his rival one better in making Mr. Hanna hideous, and the result is that the general public has a most false idea of him in the mind’s eye. The public thinks of him as being a weird nightmare—a being with a tapering pate, bulging eyes, huge chops and a gruesome grin.
35
The article explained that Hanna was, in reality, fairly good-looking and as typically American as either Bryan or McKinley. The
World
neglected to acknowledge that the Hanna phenomenon had been generated largely by Davenport and the
Journal,
nor did it mention that a few weeks earlier it had attempted its own weak and short-lived imitations of the caricature, complete with a diminutive McKinley in a Napoleonic hat.
36
World
neglected to acknowledge that the Hanna phenomenon had been generated largely by Davenport and the
Journal,
nor did it mention that a few weeks earlier it had attempted its own weak and short-lived imitations of the caricature, complete with a diminutive McKinley in a Napoleonic hat.
36
Davenport guessed early that his caricatures of Hanna would define his career. On August 8, less than two months after he had followed Hanna around the Republican convention, he published a cartoon of “Dollar Mark” seen full-figure from behind, standing at ease, his weight on one hip, his hands clasped loosely behind his back. His gaze is directed high on the wall in front of him at Thomas Nast’s famous caricature of Boss Tweed—the one with a money bag for a head and a dollar sign, slightly contorted, to represent the features of his face. Hanna stands in homage to Tweed; Davenport draws in tribute to Nast. Seeing the caricatures together in one cartoon, it seems Davenport had his idol in mind all along: the distinctive dollar sign from Tweed’s face is the same as the dollar signs in Hanna’s plaid suits. If Davenport is suggesting a comparison between his caricature and Nast’s, he comes up short. Nast is the master of American caricature. But given that Nast was the Davenport family deity, it was probably enough for Homer to have found a character of his own at least comparable to Tweed. Florinda would have been proud.
Daily newspapers had been running cartoons for decades prior to 1896, but the finest cartoonists and their best work had always appeared in magazines—
Harper’s Weekly, Vanity Fair, Judge, Puck.
Davenport’s Hanna set a new standard for draftsmanship, substance, and sustained impact in newspaper art. So far as histories of American caricature are concerned, the daily medium begins to matter with Dollar Mark. But while Davenport won plaudits within his own profession, he and Alfred Henry Lewis and their proprietor were excoriated everywhere else.
Harper’s Weekly, Vanity Fair, Judge, Puck.
Davenport’s Hanna set a new standard for draftsmanship, substance, and sustained impact in newspaper art. So far as histories of American caricature are concerned, the daily medium begins to matter with Dollar Mark. But while Davenport won plaudits within his own profession, he and Alfred Henry Lewis and their proprietor were excoriated everywhere else.
The
Journal
’s coverage of McKinley and Hanna has been described by historians and Hearst biographers as a one-sided, distorted, unethical, vitriolic, and “maliciously injurious” effort to bludgeon the Republican ticket. They charge that Hearst and company deliberately distorted and misrepresented the McKinley-Hanna association and that the candidate was in fact a smart political operator with an agreeable personality, a winning platform, and sufficient clout to have gained the Republican nomination without Hanna’s help. A surprising number of scholars cite Davenport’s work as their primary beef with the
Journal
’s coverage. They complain of “cruelty” and “distortions,” and of a “brutal” and “perverted” ingenuity in the cartoons.
37
Journal
’s coverage of McKinley and Hanna has been described by historians and Hearst biographers as a one-sided, distorted, unethical, vitriolic, and “maliciously injurious” effort to bludgeon the Republican ticket. They charge that Hearst and company deliberately distorted and misrepresented the McKinley-Hanna association and that the candidate was in fact a smart political operator with an agreeable personality, a winning platform, and sufficient clout to have gained the Republican nomination without Hanna’s help. A surprising number of scholars cite Davenport’s work as their primary beef with the
Journal
’s coverage. They complain of “cruelty” and “distortions,” and of a “brutal” and “perverted” ingenuity in the cartoons.
37
The
Journal
’s critics are not entirely wrong. Davenport’s work was indeed distorted and cruel, but cartoonists, like satirists, do not deal in polite and literal representations of the world. Alfred Henry Lewis was gratuitously nasty and guilty of all manner of overstatement: McKinley was not really just a stalking horse for plutocrats, and Hanna’s mistreatment and neglect of his employees did not lead to a thousand deaths, but, again, partisan invective and riotous hyperbole were the tools of his trade. Ohio governor Joseph B. Foraker, himself a world-class mud-slinger, said it was expected of newspapers to “call the man with whom they do not happen to agree, a liar, a thief, a villain, a scoundrel, a Yahoo, a marplot, a traitor, a beast, anything and everything they may be able to command in the way of an epithet.”
38
Bryan, as we shall see, was treated in the same manner by the Republican press. Howling partisanship and bitter rhetorical excess were givens in this era, and understood by readers as more stylistic than substantive.
Journal
’s critics are not entirely wrong. Davenport’s work was indeed distorted and cruel, but cartoonists, like satirists, do not deal in polite and literal representations of the world. Alfred Henry Lewis was gratuitously nasty and guilty of all manner of overstatement: McKinley was not really just a stalking horse for plutocrats, and Hanna’s mistreatment and neglect of his employees did not lead to a thousand deaths, but, again, partisan invective and riotous hyperbole were the tools of his trade. Ohio governor Joseph B. Foraker, himself a world-class mud-slinger, said it was expected of newspapers to “call the man with whom they do not happen to agree, a liar, a thief, a villain, a scoundrel, a Yahoo, a marplot, a traitor, a beast, anything and everything they may be able to command in the way of an epithet.”
38
Bryan, as we shall see, was treated in the same manner by the Republican press. Howling partisanship and bitter rhetorical excess were givens in this era, and understood by readers as more stylistic than substantive.
The further charge that Hearst served up relentlessly biased coverage of the Republican campaign is based on an exceedingly narrow reading of the
Journal
’s election coverage. Most historians confine themselves to the work of Lewis and Davenport, as though they represent the whole of the paper. Hearst, in fact, gave regular space to dispassionate coverage of Republican affairs, as well as to pro-Republican opinion. None of his critics has noted that the
Journal
published a full-page rebuttal of Alfred Henry Lewis by the famous Republican correspondent Murat Halstead, a regular contributor to the paper. “It is nonsense,” wrote Halstead, “to attribute the immense and overwhelming McKinley movement, which is gaining every hour, to the management of one man, Mr. Hanna. Of course, Mr. Hanna deserves great credit for his organizing capacity but he has been responding to an unmistakable and irresistible public sentiment that he did not create, and that is the recognition by the people of McKinley’s sincerity and force of character—his comprehensive and particular intelligence and faithful and unflinching following of the great principle [protectionism] of which he is the leading expounder and most conspicuous representative.”
39
Journal
’s election coverage. Most historians confine themselves to the work of Lewis and Davenport, as though they represent the whole of the paper. Hearst, in fact, gave regular space to dispassionate coverage of Republican affairs, as well as to pro-Republican opinion. None of his critics has noted that the
Journal
published a full-page rebuttal of Alfred Henry Lewis by the famous Republican correspondent Murat Halstead, a regular contributor to the paper. “It is nonsense,” wrote Halstead, “to attribute the immense and overwhelming McKinley movement, which is gaining every hour, to the management of one man, Mr. Hanna. Of course, Mr. Hanna deserves great credit for his organizing capacity but he has been responding to an unmistakable and irresistible public sentiment that he did not create, and that is the recognition by the people of McKinley’s sincerity and force of character—his comprehensive and particular intelligence and faithful and unflinching following of the great principle [protectionism] of which he is the leading expounder and most conspicuous representative.”
39
The
Journal
’s editorial page occasionally echoed Lewis’s basic read of the McKinley-Hanna relationship, describing the former as a “puppet” and the latter as an “overbearing, conscienceless, dominant man of money bags.”
40
Generally speaking, however, the editorial page avoided extremes. It often presented McKinley as a wholly respectable politician and, early in May, it actually leapt to McKinley’s defense when he was characterized in other quarters as “a disreputable old shuffler” and an “unscrupulous bird of prey.”
41
At a personal level, it rated him “wholly admirable—even lovable.” Hearst ran a touching front-page feature on the candidate’s courtship and marriage, and his tender care for his invalid wife of twenty-five years.
42
Journal
’s editorial page occasionally echoed Lewis’s basic read of the McKinley-Hanna relationship, describing the former as a “puppet” and the latter as an “overbearing, conscienceless, dominant man of money bags.”
40
Generally speaking, however, the editorial page avoided extremes. It often presented McKinley as a wholly respectable politician and, early in May, it actually leapt to McKinley’s defense when he was characterized in other quarters as “a disreputable old shuffler” and an “unscrupulous bird of prey.”
41
At a personal level, it rated him “wholly admirable—even lovable.” Hearst ran a touching front-page feature on the candidate’s courtship and marriage, and his tender care for his invalid wife of twenty-five years.
42
While it is difficult to find Hanna declared “lovable” in the
Journal
(or anywhere else, for that matter), there are numerous instances of respectful treatment. The paper ran a lengthy summary of Hanna’s essay in defense of the gold standard, and played on the front page his self-interested analyses of the nomination race.
43
It ran a cheerful little interview with Mrs. Hanna (her first), and placed a magisterial portrait of the man on its front at the opening of the St. Louis convention.
44
When Hanna made a mid-campaign visit to New York, a
Journal
photographer and reporter tracked him through every minute of a long business day. Their richly detailed coverage, headlined “24 Hours with the Great Republican Boss,” started with Hanna rising without benefit of alarm at 7 a.m. in suite 712 of the Waldorf. He sat on the edge of the tub as it filled with water: “It is at this moment that some of his most subtle political combinations are mapped out.” He took the elevator down to the second floor, where his favorite barber, Dan, gave him a two-cent shave and accepted a twenty-five-cent tip. Hanna then took a fistful of mail and telegrams to the dining room and did his correspondence while enjoying a “frugal” breakfast of cantaloupe, boiled eggs, chops, and coffee. On it went until his head hit the pillow at 11 p.m. The piece could not have been done without Hanna’s cooperation.
45
The
Journal
was fair to its opponents by conventional standards.
Journal
(or anywhere else, for that matter), there are numerous instances of respectful treatment. The paper ran a lengthy summary of Hanna’s essay in defense of the gold standard, and played on the front page his self-interested analyses of the nomination race.
43
It ran a cheerful little interview with Mrs. Hanna (her first), and placed a magisterial portrait of the man on its front at the opening of the St. Louis convention.
44
When Hanna made a mid-campaign visit to New York, a
Journal
photographer and reporter tracked him through every minute of a long business day. Their richly detailed coverage, headlined “24 Hours with the Great Republican Boss,” started with Hanna rising without benefit of alarm at 7 a.m. in suite 712 of the Waldorf. He sat on the edge of the tub as it filled with water: “It is at this moment that some of his most subtle political combinations are mapped out.” He took the elevator down to the second floor, where his favorite barber, Dan, gave him a two-cent shave and accepted a twenty-five-cent tip. Hanna then took a fistful of mail and telegrams to the dining room and did his correspondence while enjoying a “frugal” breakfast of cantaloupe, boiled eggs, chops, and coffee. On it went until his head hit the pillow at 11 p.m. The piece could not have been done without Hanna’s cooperation.
45
The
Journal
was fair to its opponents by conventional standards.
Perhaps the greatest injustice concerning Hearst’s performance in 1896 is that outrage at Lewis and Davenport has overshadowed the paper’s coverage of the Republican convention. The
Journal
on that occasion produced by far the most interesting, innovative, and wide-ranging file of any New York paper. Its June 11 front page introduced four marquee correspondents sent to the convention along with a large corps of
Journal
reporters, editors, and illustrators. Representing the paper’s politics were Alfred Henry Lewis and Henry George, a one-time candidate for mayor of New York and perhaps American’s leading champion of the income tax. Providing insight from a Republican perspective were Murat Halstead and J.J. Ingalls, an eighteen-year Republican senator from Kansas. As a group, they gave Hearst geographical, ideological, and stylistic diversity and, in George and Halstead, experience of U.S. political conventions dating back to the Civil War.
46
Journal
on that occasion produced by far the most interesting, innovative, and wide-ranging file of any New York paper. Its June 11 front page introduced four marquee correspondents sent to the convention along with a large corps of
Journal
reporters, editors, and illustrators. Representing the paper’s politics were Alfred Henry Lewis and Henry George, a one-time candidate for mayor of New York and perhaps American’s leading champion of the income tax. Providing insight from a Republican perspective were Murat Halstead and J.J. Ingalls, an eighteen-year Republican senator from Kansas. As a group, they gave Hearst geographical, ideological, and stylistic diversity and, in George and Halstead, experience of U.S. political conventions dating back to the Civil War.
46
All of the New York papers fielded teams of journalists to St. Louis, but none sent anywhere near so diverse and celebrated a group of pundits as the
Journal,
and no other gave its talent significant promotion. Typical of the competition was the
World,
which dispatched James Creelman to write the bulk of its color and analysis and gave him only his usual byline at the end of his pieces. Creelman’s opinions were consistent with the
World
’s editorial line. Editors like Pulitzer, Dana, and Whitelaw Reid believed their papers should speak with one voice on political matters: the editor’s voice. They were notoriously stingy in crediting their contributors. Hearst broke sharply with this tradition, giving his pundits not only bylines but page-one bylines with pictures, and he would run as many as three of their commentaries on the front page on the same day. In so doing, he hastened the end of the so-called Age of the Editor and helped to usher in the multi-perspective approach we identify with the modern op-ed page. No other significant American paper was operating this way at the time.
Journal,
and no other gave its talent significant promotion. Typical of the competition was the
World,
which dispatched James Creelman to write the bulk of its color and analysis and gave him only his usual byline at the end of his pieces. Creelman’s opinions were consistent with the
World
’s editorial line. Editors like Pulitzer, Dana, and Whitelaw Reid believed their papers should speak with one voice on political matters: the editor’s voice. They were notoriously stingy in crediting their contributors. Hearst broke sharply with this tradition, giving his pundits not only bylines but page-one bylines with pictures, and he would run as many as three of their commentaries on the front page on the same day. In so doing, he hastened the end of the so-called Age of the Editor and helped to usher in the multi-perspective approach we identify with the modern op-ed page. No other significant American paper was operating this way at the time.
But critics of the
Journal
’s coverage may still have a point. Even if one acknowledges that Hearst’s journalism was far more nuanced and balanced than has been credited, and even if one accepts that viciousness and rhetorical extremism were standard fare in nineteenth-century journalism, there remains the charge that Hearst and company were fundamentally wrong about the nature of the McKinley-Hanna partnership and that they smeared both men.
Journal
’s coverage may still have a point. Even if one acknowledges that Hearst’s journalism was far more nuanced and balanced than has been credited, and even if one accepts that viciousness and rhetorical extremism were standard fare in nineteenth-century journalism, there remains the charge that Hearst and company were fundamentally wrong about the nature of the McKinley-Hanna partnership and that they smeared both men.
There is no doubt that the
Journal
exaggerated the whole “puppet” issue: it was exploiting Hanna’s vulnerabilities to undermine his candidate. McKinley was a capable man with a mind of his own, a strong following, and valuable political instincts. Still, the
Journal
’s basic complaint is not easily dismissed.
Journal
exaggerated the whole “puppet” issue: it was exploiting Hanna’s vulnerabilities to undermine his candidate. McKinley was a capable man with a mind of his own, a strong following, and valuable political instincts. Still, the
Journal
’s basic complaint is not easily dismissed.
McKinley was unusually indebted to Hanna, who repeatedly bailed him out, financially and politically. No one credits McKinley with any organizational or fundraising acumen. In fact, he is said to have had a “curious lack of talent for party organizational work.”
47
If, as an alternative to Hanna’s support, he had offered himself up to the regional bosses, he would have emerged a seriously compromised candidate, running with their issues, their speeches, and their vice-presidential choice, and he would have had to hold his nose at their boodling ways. Hanna’s money bought McKinley freedom from everything but Hanna.
47
If, as an alternative to Hanna’s support, he had offered himself up to the regional bosses, he would have emerged a seriously compromised candidate, running with their issues, their speeches, and their vice-presidential choice, and he would have had to hold his nose at their boodling ways. Hanna’s money bought McKinley freedom from everything but Hanna.
In attacking the
Journal
’s contention that Hanna was the larger or stronger personality, McKinley’s defenders make much of testimony and correspondence suggesting that Hanna addressed McKinley in deferential tones and followed his lead on matters of policy. Almost all of this evidence comes from McKinley’s intimates, men protective of his reputation, and none of it was available to reporters in the summer of 1896. Indeed, all but a few scraps date from after the election, by which time McKinley and Hanna had suffered an unholy beating from the Hearst press, leaving McKinley sensitive to any appearance of subordination to Hanna.
Journal
’s contention that Hanna was the larger or stronger personality, McKinley’s defenders make much of testimony and correspondence suggesting that Hanna addressed McKinley in deferential tones and followed his lead on matters of policy. Almost all of this evidence comes from McKinley’s intimates, men protective of his reputation, and none of it was available to reporters in the summer of 1896. Indeed, all but a few scraps date from after the election, by which time McKinley and Hanna had suffered an unholy beating from the Hearst press, leaving McKinley sensitive to any appearance of subordination to Hanna.
At the time Hearst and his journalists were sizing up McKinley, he had yet to gain the sheen of high office. He was a decent man and a plausible candidate, but Alfred Henry Lewis was not alone in considering him a mediocrity. Even McKinley’s friendly biographers admit that he had “few intellectual resources”
48
and little in the way of taste or erudition. The Republican-friendly journalist William Allen White regarded McKinley as “a kindly dull gentleman . . . on the whole dumb, and rarely reaching above the least common denominator of the popular intelligence. . . . He walked among men like a bronze statue . . . determinedly looking for his pedestal.”
49
48
and little in the way of taste or erudition. The Republican-friendly journalist William Allen White regarded McKinley as “a kindly dull gentleman . . . on the whole dumb, and rarely reaching above the least common denominator of the popular intelligence. . . . He walked among men like a bronze statue . . . determinedly looking for his pedestal.”
49
Other books
How To Seduce A Pirate (The Hawkins Brothers Series) by Alexandra Benedict
Falling On the Sword by Alex Ankrom
Only for Her by Cristin Harber
The Corner Booth by Ilebode, Kelly
Regency Masquerade by Loy, Vera
Dark Mirror by Barry Maitland
What She Saw by Roberts, Mark
From The Ashes: America Reborn by William W. Johnstone
