Madam President

posted in: Edith and Woodrow | 0

The man and woman in the street didn’t know what was going on. The man in the halls of power knew hardly any more. The silence and the misinformation coming from the White House left plenty of room for speculation. “We have a petticoat government!” declared Senator Albert Fall of New Mexico. “Woodrow Wilson is not the president…. Mrs. Wilson is the president!” He might have been aiming to provoke a response (or calling a bluff). None was forthcoming.  The Baltimore Star and London Daily Mail identified Mrs. Wilson as the “acting President,” while somewhat more circumspect, the Canton Daily News averred Mrs. Wilson was merely “one of the foremost statesmen in Washington.” What was going on?

White House chief usher Ike Hoover gave his insider view ten years after the president’s death. Edith gave her own account five years after that in My Memoir, which propped up the official White House line of late 1919 to early 1921. To wit: while the president was physically limited he remained mentally sharp. Edith’s support, while significant, was as nurse, wife, and aide, not regent or “acting president.” Corroborating documents remained sealed until 1952, after which historians began to piece together events. In recent years, Phyllis Lee Levin (Edith and Woodrow, 2001) and William Hazeltine (Madam President, 2015) have told for today’s readers the surprising when not shocking tale of “America’s first woman president.”

Woodrow Wilson lost his first wife two days after the start of World War I. So deep was his grief that he was nearly incapacitated as the world burned around him. So concerned was his physician and confidant, Dr. Cary Grayson, that he stooped to play matchmaker. And it worked! Wilson fell hard for Edith Bolling Galt. His spirits revived…then he was nearly incapacitated by love.

Edith had lost her first spouse, too.  On the death of Norman Galt, Edith took control of his jewelry business and became a successful woman of affairs. She traveled abroad and became a woman of the world. When Grayson played matchmaker, Edith demurred: “My dear doctor, I am not a society person. I have never had any contacts with official Washington, and don’t desire any.” But events—and the not-to-be-denied passion of the president—overtook her. Wilson fell hard: love on first sight. (“She’s a looker,” the doorkeeper remarked. “He’s a goner,” replied the president’s valet. Over time, less dramatically, she fell for Wilson, too.

It took Wilson all of seven weeks to make a proposal of marriage. The timing with world events was, again, inauspicious: three days after the sinking of the Lusitania. Edith put him off: “Oh, you can’t love me, for you don’t really know me, and it is less than a year since your wife died.” Wilson was devastated for the second time in ten months. So off-balance was he that he went off-script the next day in Philadelphia and let slip the most famously  ill-chosen words of his presidency: “There is such a thing as being too proud to fight.” The next day, Woodrow pulled himself together and found the strength to compose his first Lusitania note. All the while, Edith was foremost in his mind: “And oh, I have needed you tonight, my sweet Edith! What a touch of your hand in a look into your eyes would have meant to me of strength and steadfastness as I made the final decision as to what I should say to Germany. You must have felt it. You must have heard the cry of my heart to you and known in every fiber of you that I needed you.”

Blackness threatened to settle over the White House again, but Edith softened and Woodrow toughened (somewhat). By September the two agreed to marry. Picking the date carried even more than the usual amount of weightiness. When would be the most politically expedient time? Too unseemly to forge ahead in the fall? Could they wait until after the election of 1916?  They settled on December, just three months away

In the meantime, the president would not allow domestic or world events to keep him from “making love” to his betrothed. “[You are] the companion I want (nobody satisfies my mind or my fancy as you do), the counselor I want (nobody steadies me as you do), the sweetheart I want (nobody delights me as you do), the wife I want (nobody can glorify or complete my life or give me happiness as you can.” Edith was flattered. And thrilled. “Much as I love your delicious love letters, that would make any woman proud and happy, I believe I enjoy even more the ones in which you tell me…of what you are working on—the things that fill your thoughts and demand your best effort, for then I feel I am sharing your work—and being taken into partnership, as it were….”

It is a strange thing to think about: a president spending time wooing a woman while he is supposed to be leading the nation, expending mental energy on romance as the world burns, engaging in the most private relations under the watchful eye of the Secret Service. (This was not the first time a president would marry while in office. Tyler, in the 1840s, and Cleveland, in the 1880s, had preceded him.) Agent Edmunds Starling admitted he had to resist the temptation to look away from the man whose every move he was supposed to monitor. When the president visited Edith (code name “Grandma”!), Starling had to stand outside her house often for four or five hours. He preferred trailing the two lovers on strolls through Rock Creek Park, the president “acting like a boy in his first love experience.” Once, the agent could have sworn Wilson danced a jig.

Edith Wilson biographer, Alden Hatch, quoted at length by Hazelgrove, captures the essence of the Wilsons’ relationship. “Very few husbands and wives have ever been as close as the Wilsons. The president’s need for companionship; his complete devotion to his wife; his trust in her judgment; and, paradoxically, his lone wolf method of conducting the government which required a confidante rather than advisors, had led him to expose her and her alone to his most intimate thoughts and to make her a party to his every decision.” [Woodrow needed Edith to ground him and to give him strength. Edith needed (without the emphasis!) Woodrow to gain access to a world otherwise barred to women of her generation. “I, an unknown person, one who had lived a sheltered, in spin inconspicuous existence now having all the threads in the tangled fabric of the world’s history laid in my hands, for a few minutes….” Minutes became hours.

Hazelgrove quotes Wilson biographer, A. Scott Berg, to show the extent of the husband and wife collaboration. They rose at 6:00 for a game of golf; at work by 8:00 with Edith sorting papers and getting his signatures on those that required it. He would discuss their contents with her, and she would listen as he dictated replies to his stenographer. As the United States was drawn into war and demands on his time increased, the two began to wake at 5:00.

Levin shows that Edith was closely involved in the preparation of Wilson’s “Peace without Victory” speech to the U. S. Senate in January 1917. If I read her correctly, Edith began decoding sensitive international communications for the president in August 1917. Later in the year she began decoding and encoding sensitive communications between the president and his closest advisor and attaché to London, Colonel Edward House. In Paris, at the peace conference, she may have appeared to be an accessory, yet, according to Edith’s secretary, Edith Benham, “All noticed that [Mrs. Wilson] was constantly [at the president’s] side, and that a look exchanged between them could sometimes change the tone of the conference.” Did the proximity to power go to her head?

Perhaps. But Edith came by her strong opinions and forceful character honestly: They were part of her nature. As far back as the Lusitania, she pushed her boyfriend to dump his independent-minded secretary of state.  “It will be a blessing to get rid of him,” she said of Bryan. Her strong opinions could be retrograde. The women picketing outside the White House in 1917 were, in her view, “detestable suffragettes ” and “disgusting creatures.” (Still, Hazelgrove thinks her input was decisive in getting the president—after years of incremental advances and hedging—to support unequivocally the federal woman suffrage amendment. He asks, after laying out the evidence, “Is there any doubt who really changed his mind for him?”

Edith Wilson was so closely involved in her husband’s work as president that when he became incapacitated by a stroke in October 1919 it was only natural for her to step up and take charge. She didn’t need to be told twice when the neurologist, Dr. Francis Xavier Dercum instructed her: “Have everything come to you; weigh the importance of each matter, and see if it is possible by consultations with the respective heads of the department’s to solve them without the guidance of your husband.” Involving Wilson in affairs of state, he said, would be like “turning a knife in an open wound.”

So it was that Edith Wilson, Dr. Cary Grayson, and Wilson’s secretary, Joe Tumulty—all three unelected to any position by the American people—began a conspiracy to keep from those same voters the true status of their president. In the service of that goal, they were compelled also to make decisions that would affect the operation of the government the Constitution had so conscientiously set up with checks and balances. As the usher Ike Hoover wrote, “Never was deception so universally practiced in the White House as it was in those statements being given out from time to time.” The deception reached its pinnacle on December 5, 1919, when the situation in Mexico dictated that a meeting with the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee could be put off no more. The meeting took place with Wilson still in bed propped on pillows, his paralyzed left side covered, the lighting dim. Gilbert Hitchcock’s report to the press on Wilson’s alertness made him an unwitting co-conspirator of the triumvirate. Hoover called the episode “the great camouflage.”

Edith was protective of her husband’s health, first and foremost. Increasingly she became protective of his legacy, which led her to take unseemly, even dangerous actions. With no constitutional authority, she became the arbiter of access to the president and the gatekeeper of information allowed to reach him. She (in collaboration with Grayson and Tumulty) kept Vice President Marshall from assuming what should have been his constitutional duty. She became, in Benham’s words, “the mouth piece for the president,” actively “transacting a great deal of the business of the government at that time, and her influence decided the P. In few decisions which were brought up to him.” Wilson’s “confidential secretary” Gilbert Close had little firsthand knowledge, having been banished from the West Wing by Mrs. Wilson. Spending his days twiddling his thumbs, it was his understanding that Edith “ran the whole show during that period.”

Other aides and advisors were denied access, even Tumulty. According to Hoover, Wilson’s secretary “tried so hard to get to the president but he was kept away as if he was a leper…. Grayson would have let him in but Mrs. Wilson would not do so.” Secretary of State Robert Lansing, too, was persona non grata, both for his alleged perfidy in Paris and for calling cabinet meetings in the sick president’s absence.  “I have to remind you,” Wilson wrote Lansing, in his stroke-induced paranoia and dictated to Edith, “that no action could be taken without me by the Cabinet, and therefore there could have been no disadvantage in awaiting action….” Lansing was miffed.

Colonel House was deeply hurt. He could not understand why his longtime friend and benefactor was pushing him away. In time he came to see that it was Edith who might have been threatened by his close relationship with the president which long predated her own. As early as Paris, 1919, Edith began undercutting House’s influence. After Wilson’s stroke, she cut him off completely. Because she could. She played off her husband’s paranoia, like Iago off Othello’s jealousy, and deepened his intransigence. House went months from his post in Europe without communication from his boss. Yet, still, he labored on Wilson’s behalf. Returning to the States he worked to salvage a compromise on the League with Lodge and the Republicans. House had nothing to gain except his benefactor’s gratitude. He incurred his disdain, instead. This time, we get the words directly from Edith: “By conferring with Lodge, his arch enemy” [whom elsewhere she had called a ‘snake in the grass’] House had “broken the president’s heart.” And he House’s.

Wilson’s snub of House on the issue of League compromise holds the possibility of world historical consequences. The possibility becomes near certainty when taken with his Edith-incited snub of British ambassador Lord Grey. The man who had failed to prevent the apocalypse of 1914, was called out of retirement to prevent the implosion of the League of Nations. Arriving in Washington just before the president’s stroke, he left three months later without ever having been granted an audience. Edith would not allow it.

The reason for her intransigence: an indelicate intrigue involving Grey’s aide, Charles Crauford-Stewart. It seems, in the previous ambassadorial regime under Rufus Lord Reading, Crauford-Stewart had earned opprobrium for an ill-advised crack against the president. Edith demanded that the aide be removed from the current legation before the president would deign to meet with Grey. An impasse resulted that was never bridged. Grey went home in disgust.  Crauford-Stewart’s crime? He was the originator, according to Levin, of the joke that had made the rounds in 1915: “When Wilson proposed to the second Mrs. Wilson, she was so surprised she nearly fell out of bed.” Edith could not forgive–or ignore–such insolence, even at the cost of worsened international relations. Levin describes Edith, early in her book, as “disarmingly adventurous and purposeful,” while “at the same time frivolous and petty.” The last descriptor is especially apt in this episode.

Both Levin and Hazelgrove wonder how history might have been different had Edith not undercut House’s efforts, had she allowed Grey access to an admittedly enfeebled president, had she allowed the so-called Bonsal compromise to reach her husband’s eyes. “Surely the United States led League of Nations would have been better in checking arising Germany then the isolationist cocoon the country found itself in,” opines Hazelgrove in his book’s conclusion. And in her forward, Levin asks us to “consider whether events leading to the Second World War might not have been recast had Edith Wilson permitted the vice president, Thomas R. Marshall, to supplant her incapacitated husband in the White House in 1919. Given Marshall’s reasonable temperament,” compromise with Lodge Republicans would have been a very realistic possibility.

Many less world-historical issues were affected by Edith and the triumvirate’s extra-constitutional legerdemain. Bills requiring response within ten days were allowed to become law without presidential signature. Other documents were signed with Edith holding his hand or forging his signature. Correspondence of unknown importance was allowed to go unopened and unanswered. Cabinet posts unfilled. Levin believes Wilson was uninvolved in “his” veto of the Volstead Act (which he would have agreed with and which was swiftly overridden). She says, too, he might have been unaware of the constitutionally questionable Palmer Raids.

It feels unfair to pick on Edith. She had energy and boldness and independence at a time when women were allowed little outlet for such qualities. Hazelgrove calls her “formidable” with better political instincts than her husband. At the same time, he downplays the groundbreaking nature of her accomplishment. At her first husband’s death and her second husband’s incapacitation, she had done as all American women who had lost a spouse had done before her. She stepped up to “run the family business.”

Levin is perhaps less charitable. The documentary record, in her view, opens her up to the charge of being “ruthless, presumptuous, and shallow in her regard for the highest office in the land.” Ditto the Constitution. Cavalier is another word that comes to mind. So consumed was she with protecting her own interests, even if motivated by the lofty emotion of love, she was blinded to the consequences of her actions on her country and the wider world. Second wave feminism would have been shocked—and appalled—by this earlier iteration of “the personal as political.”

Sources:

Hazelgrove, William. Madam President: The Secret Presidency of Edith Wilson. Washington, DC: Regnery, 2016: 37, 61, 62, 64, 78, 105, 117, 141, 143, 175, 224, 236, 272.

Levin, Phyllis Lee. Edith and Woodrow: The Wilson White House. New York: Scribner, 2001: 14, 70, 75, 79, 103, 111, 143, 180, 343, 351, 362, 365, 368, 373, 389, 404, 407, 422, 428-429.

Wikimedia Commons

The President and His Right Hemisphere

posted in: Edith and Woodrow | 0

As it happened, I was driving out of the parking lot, on my way home after having stocked up on groceries. The special guest, Iain McGilchrist, on the podcast Hidden Brain, coming through the auxiliary cord from my iPhone to my car’s speakers, made a lengthy remark that caused me sit up. Describing the effects of a right-hemisphere stroke, the psychiatrist explained that the patient would lose a sense of the big picture.

“There’d be an emphasis on the details, instead. There would be a great emphasis on predictability, organizability, anonymity, categorization, loss of the unique and an ability to break things down into parts but not really see what the whole is like. There’d be a need for total control because the left hemisphere is somewhat paranoid. After right hemisphere damage, people often develop a paranoia, and that’s because one can’t understand quite what’s going on and one needs, therefore, to control it. Anger would become the key note in public discourse. Everything would become black and white.”

 

Woodrow Wilson!

In my reading life, I had been following the surprising story of the Wilson presidency in Edith and Woodrow, by Phyllis Lee Levin, and Madam President, by William Hazelgrove. Wilson lost his wife and confidante of twenty-nine years just days after the outbreak of what would become the First World War. He met, courted, and married a woman sixteen years his junior during the heart of the conflict. And, following an illness whose true nature was kept secret from the public, was unable to fulfill his duties as president. His wife, Edith, with help from his physician, Dr. Cary Grayson, and his personal secretary, Joe Tumulty, kept the administration (such as it was) operational.

McGilchrist’s descriptors–paranoid, the need for control, anger, black-and-white view of the world–made me think automatically of the post-stroke Wilson. I returned to the two books and located the moment after Edith found him sprawled on the bathroom floor, when Grayson, declared, “My God, the President is paralyzed!” (The p-word was never again uttered, or at least recorded, by the conspiring triumvirate.) Yes, the left side of his body that was immobilized: the damage was in his right hemisphere. Wilson wasn’t merely a ham-fisted politician in his fight for the League. He was more than a sick man, struggling to manage weighty affairs of the world. He was mentally impaired in a way that affected the course of history.

Wilson could be a prickly man, both self-righteous and self-absorbed. In Paris in early 1919, Edith Wharton was astonished at Wilson’s tactlessness toward the French. He never visited the bloodiest battlefields (or  any at all), never praised the French for (or even acknowledged) the strength of their courage, waging war for four years on home soil.  Queen Marie of Romania spared no words in her assessment. Wilson, she said, was “very convinced of always being right, …certain that he will always have the last word, always intrenched in his superior detached attitude.”

In early 1919, though, Wilson was already a sick man. Levin shows how he probably suffered a small stroke on or about April 28. An attending physician at the time, Dr. Malford Thewlis, wrote retrospectively that the illness “made of him a changeling with a very different personality and markedly less ability.”

Apparently, Wilson had been able, earlier, to appreciate nuance, accommodate difference, contemplate compromise. In an 1890 speech, he declared, “Uncompromising thought is the luxury of the closeted recluse.”  In 1908, he explained that, in a divided government, a president did well to seek “veritable counsel and real accommodation of views instead of a final challenge and contest.”

Alas, such words were meaningless to the President in 1919. Wilson became a “closeted recluse,” literally as well as figuratively. And he chose “a final challenge and contest” rather than accommodation and compromise. The League of Nations may have well-intentioned, but Henry Cabot Lodge had good reason to argue against Article X, which pledged every signatory, including the United States, to come to another member’s aid when attacked. Lodge thought Article X unworkable at best, downright dangerous at worst. But he was willing to sign the treaty “with reservations.” Wilson was not.

He told Edith, when she urged him to soften his stance, that it was “better a thousand times to go down fighting than to dip your colors to dishonorable compromise .” The Senate failed to ratify the treaty, but Wilson was strangely energized. “All the more reason,” he declared, “I must get well and try to bring this country to a sense of its great opportunity and greater responsibility.” These are the words of a man unhinged, not a president with the faculties to navigate treacherous political waters.

The Treaty and the League went up for a second vote in early 1920. Rather than bend, Wilson hunkered down. Democratic Senators stood ready to support the amended treaty, but Wilson would have none of it. “I will not play for position,” he told one advisor. “This is not a time for tactics. It is a time to stand square. I can stand defeat. I cannot stand retreat from conscientious duty.” In a written public statement before the final vote, Wilson’s words torpedoed any chance of a compromise: “Any reservation seeking to deprive the League of Nations of the force of Article X cuts at the heart of the covenant itself. …Either we should enter the league fearlessly, accepting the responsibility and in the role of leader,…or we should retire as gracefully as possible….”

When ratification failed, Levin documents Wilson contemplating the most egregious of extra-Constitutional measures. He drafted a letter challenging the fifty-three Senators who had voted for the Lodge resolutions to resign their seats immediately and seek reelection based solely on their treaty vote. It is no wonder that contemporaries remarked on his erratic and pugnacious behavior.  But Wilson’s ill-treated secretary of state, Robert Lansing, summed it up best: “Wilson’s intransigence in all matters [by 1920] became pervasive.”

And all because of a blood-starved right hemisphere of the brain. (At least, largely–even mostly–due to the brain-damage.) History assuredly would have been different had the United States joined the fledgling League of Nations, even with the force of Article X neutered. The counterfactuals abound.

Yet the invalided Wilson could not have exerted his intransigence without help. Without a close circle of conspirators keeping the true nature and degree of his illness from the country at-large, Wilson would have been deemed unfit for office.

More on how his wife took control of the presidency later in the month.

Sources:

Eddie Rickenbacker, Soft in the Middle

posted in: Eddie Rickenbacker | 0

I implied–well, stated outright–that Rickenbacker was an indulgent father. That’s not quite right, of course. Human behavior is always more complicated than a single word can capture. That he could seem indulgent from a few lines of his letters is significant. For Rickenbacker was very much a product of the nineteenth century, a buck-it-up, nose-to-the-grindstone, pull-your-self-up-by-the-bootstraps kind of guy. And those Victorian attitudes came across in his letters, too. When they did, I was reminded of the discomfort I sometimes felt in the presence of my practical-minded grandfather.

My Poppy was born fifteen years later than Eddie Rickenbacker and into a more comfortable, stable situation, yet the two shared some significant experiences. Eddie dropped out of school before eighth grade; my grandfather went to work after graduating from high school. Yet both experienced hazing on the factory floor in their first jobs. (Apparently, grown men in those days couldn’t resist pushing around anyone less powerful than themselves.) Both determined to work themselves out of the ranks of the powerless, and both had the smarts to do so. Eddie rose through automotive engineering, which he learned through an “international” correspondence course. My grandfather attended night school to earn an associate degree in chemistry. Both built family wealth as practical men of business in growth industries of the twentieth century, airlines for the one, mass-produced faux-leather shoes for the other.

“But what are you going to study?” my grandfather would as college approached. I was tongue-tied. I had no idea. It was, I understand now, a defining feature of my class (or, perhaps, generation): not to have to commit, to hold dear the possibility of one’s ideas without regard for the hard, cold demands of material necessity.  Rickenbacker encouraged Bill in his pursuits of the mind, but concern for the practical lingered always at least in the background, and occasionally front-and-center. “I want you to know that your choice of Harvard has my 100% approval, as well as Mother’s,” he wrote, encouragingly, before adding, “However, I would appreciate your giving some thought to having one of your courses Business Administration, because it will stand you in mighty good stead no matter what walk of life you choose or follow.”

Later, after Bill had knocked around a bit after Harvard, Rickenbacker revealed where his true interests lay: “The day may come,” he told Bill, “when you would want to join Eastern Air Lines and learn all about it, and eventually follow in my footsteps.” Four months later he picked up the same theme: “I am hoping that you might be interested in as time goes on is to join me in Eastern where we can have a lot of fun together and you can be of great assistance a progress very rapidly.” [sic] He had practical goals for Bill, but the self-interest (“…we can have a lot of fun together…”) comes through just as strongly. Bill knew himself well enough to resist/ignore the offer. Eddie was wise enough to let him follow his own course.

The wisdom may have been hard-won, as it is for many of us. Earlier in fatherhood, Rickenbacker sounded less sure of himself. He resorted to blatant bribery to try to straighten out his wayward son: “You know how badly Mother and I want you to be on the honor roll and unless you can be, I am afraid I am going to hold off buying you a new set of golf clubs, which I dislike doing very much as I want you to have them.” Two years later, he forewent the carrot and wielded the stick, threatening, “If you cannot change your way of thinking, then I am going to have to change it for you, which I do not want to do. In other words, …you probably would be much better off in a military school, which is not an easy life and where they teach you these traits by compulsion instead of persuasion. That, I do not want to do….” These words struck me, as I read them, as a bit clueless, certainly outdated, and surely less than effective.

Yet, as his child grew into personhood, Rickenbacker grew into his role as father. He developed a strong epistolary relationship with his son and his words of reprimand begin to sound more restrained and, probably, more effective: “I note in your letter a tendency on your part to belittle the so-called exclusive clubs and exclusive people. Remember it is very easy with your attitude to become the isolationist instead of them, and if you let this attitude multiply, you will find yourself a snob instead of the other fellow.” He goes on in a similarly reasoned way, but what he doesn’t say is as important as what he does say. For he never reminds his son that he, Bill, chose Harvard over Dartmouth, which had been Eddie’s first choice. He never stoops to any version of “I told you so.”

After receiving news of an apparently disappointing report card, Rickenbacker wrote, “I would appreciate your writing me just what classes you have been cutting and why. In other words, give me the whole story as you honestly see it without any attempt to alibi yourself. Just lay the cards out on the table as I have always tried to teach you, and remember, it is by far the best way at all times.” No harsh reprimands, as might have been expected, even justified. Just a firm exhortation to take responsibility (with perhaps a hint of micromanagement).

As Bill entered the adult world, Rickenbacker’s letters abounded with even more advice, if that were possible. In one nine-hundred-word missive, I counted twenty-two different pieces of advice or admonition. I was reminded of my own father’s letters, infrequent, but when they came, long and full of “when-I-was-a-boy” self-revelations and school-of-hard-knocks insights. I disliked those letters, every one. I disliked the way my father revealed himself in embarrassing ways to me while never seeming to show much understanding of who I was. Though I gave him credit for trying, I felt letdown that his words rarely helped me feel closer to him. I am reminded of these feelings every time I write a certain kind of email to my own children. I find it hard to avoid the same tendencies to advise and refer to my past experience…and to feel wholly ineffectual.

Rickenbacker might have annoyed his son to some degree (maybe), but he might have largely avoided it by writing so frequently (almost every Sunday)—and by getting Bill to reciprocate, if less frequently. Listen to how Eddie handles an important exchange of ideas with his son: “What you say…is interesting to say the least, and I agree to a degree with your thinking…” and “I cannot quite agree with you…”. Notice how he allows his adult son autonomy by respectfully disagreeing but not expecting him to change his mind. A few years later, Rickenbacker explained his interests to Bill forthrightly: “I hope you will always ask for my advice or help in any of your difficult moments as long as I am around to give it.” But he hastened to add, “Not that it will always be the correct answer but it helps to balance your own judgment and that is true of all of us.”

So, there it is. I end, once again, with Eddie the softy. It seems a paradox. A man who was so often hard-edged was just as often sentimental. A man who dressed down incompetence both harshly and publicly, could be generous and kind almost to a fault. A staunch conservative allowed liberal values to leak out with regularity. A man reviled by many was beloved by even more. My list of these dichotomies-held-in-tension jogged a memory of a similar litany I had encountered earlier. In From the Captain to the Colonel, Robert Serling described Rickenbacker the Eastern Air Lines general manager as “a dictator with the saving grace of sentimentality, a corporate potentate with a conscience, an egotistical autocrat with a strange streak of humility, a feudal baron demanding total allegiance, yet not quite capable of suppressing both affection for and a sense of responsibility for the serfs.” Now I understand what he means.

People are complicated creatures, not easily subsumed under tidy descriptors. This is as for America’s Ace of Aces as it is for anyone else. In what might have been his final comment on the matter, Rickenbacker seemed to want to place himself on the hard-ass side of the equation. Asked about his parenting after rereading his own letters published in From Father to Son (1970), Eddie, both surprisingly and predictably, said, “I think I’d come down harder on him now.”

Sources:

Garrett, Betty. “‘Capt. Eddie’ Admits Time Was Better Flyer.” Columbus Citizen-Journal. November 18, 1970.

Rickenbacker, William, ed. From Father to Son: The letters of Captain Eddie Rickenbacker to his son William, from boyhood to  manhood. New York: Walker and Company, 1970: 46, 48, 133, 145, 7, 18, 56, 74, 133, 144.

Serling, Robert J. From the Captain to the Colonel: An Informal History of Eastern AirlinesNew York: Dial Press, 1980: 144.

Rickenbacker family photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/auburnuniversitydigitallibrary/with/3018997765/ 

 

 

Parenting from the Top Ten Percent

posted in: Eddie Rickenbacker | 0

Forget the one percent, says David Brooks. It’s all about the top ten–or perhaps twenty–percent. My family falls at the cusp of this upper income quintile, yet family wealth (see Thomas Picketty) has loomed even larger in our household’s well-being. We have lived within our means but mostly have had the security of knowing our parents had resources we could fall back on in case of emergency. Our children have never wanted for anything and, perhaps as a result, have never been particularly materialistic. They have not gone to expensive private universities, but as my daughter begins to stake out her career, we always make clear that financial considerations should not affect her decision. Unpaid internships are always on the table. Enriching experiences, subsidized by us, will carry her farther in the end. It is a privilege of growing up in the Top Ten–er, Twenty–Percent.

In 1904, when Eddie Rickenbacker’s father died, his family’s status, already modest, was downgraded, surely, into the bottom twenty percent. Just thirteen at the time, Eddie dropped out of school and worked a string of menial jobs for the next two years. Thirty-five years later, Rickenbacker was president and general manager of Eastern Air Lines and surely in or near the top one percent. How did this man–raised on the mean streets of Columbus, come-of-age on the dirt tracks of the Upper Midwest, hardened in the life-and-death combat in the skies over France–how did he raise his own two adopted sons, David and William? Did he strengthen them with tough love? Did he expect them to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, the hard way, as he had? Not at all. His parenting was–though different in significant ways–remarkably similar to my own (and my wife’s). Both of us promoted enriching experiences for our children rather than youthful wage labor.

We can infer much about Rickenbacker’s parenting because of the letters his elder son chose to publish in the book From Father to Son (1970). Bill Rickenbacker had as many letters as he did because his father was an avid correspondent. Equally important, Rickenbacker pere sent Rickenbacker fils away to boarding school at the tender age of eleven. Letters were an essential form of communication early on.

We have this one reference from Eddie to early memories from before Bill went away: The years in Bronxville were “some of the happiest years of my life because of the fun I had with you and David in watching you grow physically and mentally.” Nevertheless, Bill (and his brother David) was sent away to school. Theirs quickly became a long-distance relationship between “Daddy” and “My old Pal Bill,” much to the benefit of the curious historian.

As a youngster, Eddie had nurtured dreams of becoming an artist, but the demands of survival threw cold water on such fantasies. Instead, he applied his visual-spatial aptitude, as well as his uncanny nose for problem-solving, to automotive engineering, a more practical and remunerative trade. Four decades later, Bill did much that his father had not able to. “You must…be getting a great kick out of your oil painting.” Eddie wrote while Bill was in high school. “It is certainly a grand hobby and one that you can always use. I used to have a love for watercolors in my school days, but I was much younger than you are now. However, keep it up.”

Eddie encouraged his son’s music, too: “I will be anxious to hear you play Beethoven’s Sonata when you return in June. Personally, I would give my shirt if I could play the piano….” (One recalls how Eddie, during his Maxwell racing days, was among the first shop managers to play recorded music for his workers.)

Bill learned five languages–French, Spanish, German, Greek, and Russian–and almost pursued a career in philology. (Bill came by his talents naturally. His biological mother was a “gifted pianist,” his father a “brilliant linguist.”) In a strange twist of fate, the mechanic who butted heads with Ivy Leaguers on the airfield of Issoudun, found his son attending Harvard. Even before Bill matriculated, he was way ahead of his father: “Gosh! You certainly get me down with your great, big words. I have to go to the dictionary to look up the meaning of them, to say nothing of your French quotations. You know, it has been a long time since I spoke French in World War I, and I have forgotten most of what little I knew.”

A few months later, after starting college, Bill prompted much the same response: “You must have looked that dictionary over very carefully with all the big words you used in your letter. I am sorry I have no time to find a dictionary and get their exact meaning, I but I think I catch on.” Here was the crux of the issue. As a self-made man Eddie must have reveled in his son’s educational successes. At the same time, they probably stirred up some of the old feelings of shame at his own shortcomings.

“The money I am spending towards your education gives me more satisfaction than you will ever know,” Eddie wrote later in Bill’s freshman year. “I am happy that you and Dave have helped throughout the years to inspire me to make the money that makes this education possible.” Eddie uses this sentence to support the bigger argument of the letter that follows. William would do better coming home for the summer rather than work. His reasons are revealing. “I do not think that you would be happy in the first place and in the second place, the years are slipping by, and this summer would be one of the happy ones to have you with us because it would be for the first time that the four of us have had the privilege of spending the summer together for several years.”

It is important to note that Bill was not going to spend a summer hauling heavy trays in a hot glass factory or capping bottles in a smelly brewery, as Eddie had done at age fourteen. He was going to be paid $1,500 (1946 dollars!) to be a golf pro (giving lessons, manning the pro shop, and–someone’s got to do it–playing low-scoring rounds of golf). “I want you…to be prepared by knowledge gained now to be able to place yourselves in a position of being able to send your children through school in years to come. Consequently, I hope that you will pass up this lucrative opportunity and spend the summer with us where you can enjoy all of the golf that you care to and at the same time have the leisure for studies in preparation for your future.” [emphases mine] Leisure for golf and studies. Think about long term career enhancement rather than the short term remuneration. These were the priorities Eddie the Striver–Eddie the Workaholic–had for his son. It seems strange until one remembers that several times in his own life he took pay cuts to advance his career.

Two years later, the message was very similar. Thinking about Bill’s summer plans before his senior year of college, Eddie and Adelaide discussed the matter and “have agreed that the ideal combination for balanced health, a balanced diet, and balanced intellectual, as well as expense, program would be for you to come into the city with me on Monday mornings, do your studying on Mondays and Tuesdays, and your researching at the library. This would give me the opportunity and pleasure of having breakfast with you in the morning and dinner in the evening when you are free. Then you can go back to the country on Wednesday morning, with your head crammed full of learning and your heart full of music, balanced with some good golf on the side.” Not exactly a helicopter parent but a bit of a micro-manager–one who is looking out for his own pleasures as well as his son’s. Who’da thunk it?

Eddie sounds more indulgent of his son than my own parents were of me. Or than I have been of my own children. Still, I often second-guess our parenting…

I met a high school student last month who said he works 3:00 to 10:00 every evening after school. He gets his homework done (when he does get it done) late at night. But the money! He had no regrets. He was willing to pay in time for cash. In fact, almost all the middle class high school students I encounter talk about holding down jobs in a way mine never did. They took the money for granted and took the time, instead. Time to study, to be sure, but also time to manage stress and to stay involved in extra-curricular activities: theater and Tae Kwon Do. Now that they are poised for independence, I wonder if they will make the leap. Were we too soft?

Then there is Eddie Rickenbacker; for many, the paragon of a hard-ass. He wasn’t so different. He might have been, in a way, softer.

Regardless, Bill felt the need to prove himself worthy of the Ace of Aces. At twenty-three he joined the Air Force and learned to fly fighter jets. During his training in Texas, Eddie, the strict fiscal conservative, was “glad to note that you are continuing to bank $80 a month.” Yet the possibly indulgent father also declared he was even “more happy to hear that you are playing some golf and doing a bang up job of it.” Eddie liked to know that his son had time for “fun,” perhaps because he had been experienced so little at a similar age.

“It is my hope and Mother’s hope,” Eddie wrote to Bill while he was still in college, “that we can leave you boys substantially protected financially so that such a career [an author, a scholar, or a man of service] would not be impeded for lack of financial resources.” Today’s Top Twenty Percenter might not use the same phrasing, but the sentiment would probably be the same: Take advantage of all the enriching experiences we can provide you. Don’t let money stand in the way of your personal growth. 

Bill grew up to become editor-in-chief of the National Review; then established his own investment business. In retirement, he read his way through fifteen volumes of Burke and twenty-one of Ortega y Gasset (in the original Spanish, it goes without saying). He played the piano four hours a day. Captain Eddie, a man who worked with his hands, had given his son the wherewithal to pursue a life of the mind.

Sources:

Rickenbacker, William, ed. From Father to Son: The letters of Captain Eddie Rickenbacker to his son William, from boyhood to  manhood. New York: Walker and Company, 1970: 87, 27, 38, 36, 54, 63, 64, 96, 131, 102, 145, 81.

Lewis, David. Eddie Rickenbacker: An American Hero in the Twentieth Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005: 293-294.

1940s Golf: http://www.westchestermagazine.com/Westchester-Magazine/Golf-Guide-2013/History-of-Golf-in-America-Westchester-the-Birthplace-of-Golf/index.php?cparticle=2&siarticle=1

1986 National Review Cover: https://www.unz.com/print/author/McLaughlinJohn/

Wooden Nickels author page: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/wooden-nickels-book-hc-1966-william-f-rickenbacker.275684/

David and William: https://www.flickr.com/photos/auburnuniversitydigitallibrary/3019827224

2007 Income Quintile Graph: https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/h/Household_income_in_the_United_States.htm