You must live under a rock or extremely naive (or both) not to know about: firstly the Compromise that gave Hayes the presidency and more importantly, the 1877 Compromise that gave rise to the degradation and terror of African Americans living in the South.
Of which, the latter produced evil fruit such as the brutal murder of a child (Emmett Teal) and so many others!
May I ask that before you post at least read and understand the context of US government’s policies and their framework because of these many in the margins suffer, and I must add greatly!
I balked at this, too. He did mention the compromise and included the political cartoon, but it sure felt like he shrugged off the consequences as a cause already defeated. With such devastating results, the shrug was inappropriate. I’m still learning about our history and appreciate these essays on the presidents. This one seems to be trying to cast only a positive light on the subject. From reading this, the in-between-the-lines part tells me that Hayes salvaged the Republican Party, which is not the same as being president for the entire nation. What might he have done for Black Americans is he had applied his cunning to revamping the promise of Lincoln? We’ll never know, but this is not something to shrug off.
An interesting essay, but there are two important things that should be noted. First, "merit" is not a self-defining concept. Open examinations testing skills directly relevant to a position, which is what they did, are one thing; modern credentialing and screening systems often operate very differently and can become exclusionary in ways their advocates never intended (at least in their public facing communications).
Second, there is no true "separation of administration from politics". Politics does not disappear; it merely shifts location. The real question is who has access to it and through which institutions it operates. In Hayes's America, politics remained remarkably open and participatory through mass-member parties, local governments, civic organizations, and other intermediary bodies.
What later, post WW2 civil service reforms, that occurred over the course of a few decades, often accomplished was not the removal of politics but the transfer of important decisions from publicly contestable political arenas into professional-administrative ones where politics was still very much present, as it always is when big resource assignments are concerned, it was just then dominated by powerful special interest groups.
This was great. Do you think the legacy of civil service reform ultimately achieved its objective of a higher-performance governmental apparatus? I am at least somewhat sympathetic to the Hollow Parties thesis of a core tension between professionalization and broad-based ground-level political participation.
Thanks for filling out the story of President Hayes- few of us know his kegacy
You must live under a rock or extremely naive (or both) not to know about: firstly the Compromise that gave Hayes the presidency and more importantly, the 1877 Compromise that gave rise to the degradation and terror of African Americans living in the South.
Of which, the latter produced evil fruit such as the brutal murder of a child (Emmett Teal) and so many others!
May I ask that before you post at least read and understand the context of US government’s policies and their framework because of these many in the margins suffer, and I must add greatly!
I balked at this, too. He did mention the compromise and included the political cartoon, but it sure felt like he shrugged off the consequences as a cause already defeated. With such devastating results, the shrug was inappropriate. I’m still learning about our history and appreciate these essays on the presidents. This one seems to be trying to cast only a positive light on the subject. From reading this, the in-between-the-lines part tells me that Hayes salvaged the Republican Party, which is not the same as being president for the entire nation. What might he have done for Black Americans is he had applied his cunning to revamping the promise of Lincoln? We’ll never know, but this is not something to shrug off.
Interesting. Thank you for adding depth to a “lesser known” president.
* my utmost apologies for misspelling Emmett Till (not Teal)
An interesting essay, but there are two important things that should be noted. First, "merit" is not a self-defining concept. Open examinations testing skills directly relevant to a position, which is what they did, are one thing; modern credentialing and screening systems often operate very differently and can become exclusionary in ways their advocates never intended (at least in their public facing communications).
Second, there is no true "separation of administration from politics". Politics does not disappear; it merely shifts location. The real question is who has access to it and through which institutions it operates. In Hayes's America, politics remained remarkably open and participatory through mass-member parties, local governments, civic organizations, and other intermediary bodies.
What later, post WW2 civil service reforms, that occurred over the course of a few decades, often accomplished was not the removal of politics but the transfer of important decisions from publicly contestable political arenas into professional-administrative ones where politics was still very much present, as it always is when big resource assignments are concerned, it was just then dominated by powerful special interest groups.
This was great. Do you think the legacy of civil service reform ultimately achieved its objective of a higher-performance governmental apparatus? I am at least somewhat sympathetic to the Hollow Parties thesis of a core tension between professionalization and broad-based ground-level political participation.