Tags
American history, biographies, book reviews, Jack Bauer, John Eisenhower, presidential biographies, Presidents, Zachary Taylor
So far on this journey of twelve presidents and fifty-six biographies I’ve been surprised at how interesting I have found the lives of our former presidents. From the most-revered (Washington and Jefferson) to the unsuccessful (John Tyler comes to mind) to the infamous (that’s you, Andrew Jackson) I have never been disappointed. Until now.
Unlike several earlier presidents such as John Quincy Adams and Old Hickory, Zachary Taylor’s life was not tailor-made for a great movie, or an exciting biography. I should have known something unsatisfying loomed when biographer K. Jack Bauer wrote in his introduction that “Taylor’s career…was not only unexciting, but mundane and boring.” That appears to be the understatement of the year.
Note-to-self: when an author warns that his subject’s life was boring…time to fertilize the lawn or re-caulk the bathtub.
Nevertheless, Taylor’s life is instructive for what it can mean to find one’s self in the right place at the right time. He dedicated nearly his entire adult life to the U.S. Army (tolerating decades of drudgery, accented with a few moments of excitement) and was asked to lead American troops in the Mexican War. Having succeeded – or at least persevered – in that effort, the Whig party selected him as their presidential nominee. This seems to have been due to the fact that his narrative resembled that of successful Whig candidate General William H. Harrison eight years earlier rather than his finely-honed policy positions or political instincts.
Like Old Tippecanoe, Taylor was a patriot and an apparent American hero, and that was enough to get elected president in 1848. But it wasn’t enough to escape the death curse of Whig party soldier-presidents. General Harrison, of course, had died just one month into his presidency. General Taylor managed to last sixteen months.
* * *
* The first Taylor biography I read was K. Jack Bauer’s 1985 classic “Zachary Taylor: Soldier, Planter, Statesman of the Old Southwest.” This seems certain to remain the definitive biography of Taylor based on its breadth and depth of insight. Unfortunately, the author’s efforts are applied against a sixty-five year life which was more often dull than dynamic. The fact Taylor seems not to have been particularly charismatic or lively doesn’t help. But Bauer’s compulsion for providing details on matters both great and small slows the books pace and causes it to be no more exhilarating than the life it covers. (Full review here)
–
The next, and final, biography of Taylor was John S. D. Eisenhower’s “Zachary Taylor.” Published in 2008, this is a brief and less exhaustively-detailed examination of Taylor’s life. Fortunately, it seems to contain more than its fair share of thoughtful judgments and conclusions, and it hold the reader’s attention more effectively than Bauer’s biography. But while it is far more efficient with the reader’s time, it is not nearly as scholarly or complete. (Full review here)
– – – – – – –
For the casual reader of presidential biographies (or someone looking to read something about Zachary Taylor), Eisenhower’s book will prove both interesting and more-than-adequate. But anyone requiring a more intensive exploration of Taylor’s life will find Bauer’s biography the preferred route of study.
– – – – – – –
Best (Definitive) Biography of Taylor: “Zachary Taylor: Soldier, Planter, Statesman of the Old Southwest” by Jack Bauer
Best (Efficient) Biography of Taylor: “Zachary Taylor” by John S. D. Eisenhower
My Journey Through the Best Presidential Biographies 
And…this is great weather for reading!
Wow, you aren’t kidding! Nothing like curling up with some Zachary Taylor while enduring ten-below-zero degree wind chills…
Reblogged this on Practically Historical.
Holman Hamilton. 2-Volumes –
ZACHARY TAYLOR: SOLDIER OF THE REPUBLIC; SOLDIER IN THE WHITE HOUSE
Link: http://alincolnbookshop.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/PresBiblio.pdf
Pingback: 44 books on 44 presidents: Most. Boring. President. Ever. - News
I knew next to nothing about Zachary Taylor prior to reading his biography, so I was really looking forward to learning about him. I chose Holman Hamilton’s two volumes, Solider of the Republic and Solider in the White House. I enjoyed Hamilton’s writing style and the breadth of his research about Taylor. I personally would not consider Taylor boring, his military experience was interesting and although he was not a politician prior to being elected president, within his short-term he was the first seemingly “independent” president. Although he was only in office a little over a year, he was determined to set his own agenda. By no means would he have solved the growing secession issues, but I think he would have been a more valuable executive than Fillmore ended up being.
I’ve heard good things about Hamilton’s series (though not before I finished reading biographies of Zachary Taylor in early 2014) so I’ve added the two volumes to my follow-up list. Taylor’s birthplace is only about 30 minutes from where I live and I have to admit…his life story is more interesting than I originally suspected.
I don’t own any bios yet on Taylor and am looking at the two volume Holman set, namely the nice Easton Press edition. I appreciate the comments here about this set, as it’s between this and the Bauer volume, but I generally tend towards the more detailed bios (I own the complete 6 volume Hoover set), but only if they are well researched and written.
Whichever bio(s) you read of Zachary Taylor, I’d be interested to know what you think! …and I’m jealous you’ve got the complete Hoover set. Obtaining that series is a priority for me since I really enjoyed (much to my surprise) reading about him, particularly prior to becoming president. A well-researched and insightful series on him could make for a compelling read.
I’ll let you know! I probably won’t get to them for several months, I am backlogged in my reading right now.
As for the Hoover set, it took some patience to wait for affordable copies, but I was able to complete it without paying more than $30 for any volume. Some of the newer ones are regularly over $50. I set price watches in Amazon, and after several months finally received notification that copies were available for cheap, so I bought them immediately. I haven’t read all 6 yet, but have read the last two, which were fascinating and impeccable scholarship. The research was very thorough and the narrative wasn’t the most engaging, but certainly engaging enough. The volume on his presidency, “Fighting Quaker,” has been the best overview of Hoover’s presidency that I’ve yet read, and I’ve read most treatments of his life, including the newest from a couple months ago that does focus just on his presidency, “Herbert Hoover in the White House: The Ordeal of the Presidency.” Anyways, good luck in finding affordable copies of the later Hoover volumes! I can recommend them with high marks and praise.
This is the first I’ve seen of your website. It is a nice service.
I must, however, differ with you on your recommendations of Taylor’s biographers. Taylor’s truly definitive biography, Holman Hamilton’s two volume series is only mentioned in the comments.
Unfortunately, I found Bauer’s biography to more damning with faint praise, and in some cases outright biased reports, that either of the other biographies. Holman Hamilton’s 2 volume biography is much better, as is Eisenhower’s who had military experience to back up his assessments, as well as unfettered access to another General President — his father.
Bauer is very critical of Taylor’s generalship during the Mexican-American War and doesn’t give a full picture, only what suits his version of the story. From memory (mine of his book which is two months old), he continually faults Taylor for not following up his victories with a final coup.. He is most critical is Taylor’s last victory at Buena Vista. The only way that Taylor was able to win this battle was by using a strong defensive position close to Buena Vista. in this battle, Taylor was outnumbered over 3:1 by Santa Anna. In addition the vast majority of Taylor’s troops and officers, most importantly his experienced regulars, were taken by General Scott for the Veracruz to Mexico City southern theater campaign. Taylor was left to fight with raw volunteers and some handful of regulars that he had not commanded before. To attempt to follow up a victory where you have lost less causalities on an absolute basis, but more on a relative basis and still have a greater than 3:1 disadvantage, and meeting your opponent with no defensive advantage and a field not of your choosing would be suicidal,and yet this is what Bauer expected Taylor to do. Interestingly enough, Taylor was faulted by President Polk alternatively for either not going far enough and then going too far. But in this case Polk felt that Taylor had gone too far and was not supporting him with either troops or enough supplies. In addition Santa Anna was retreating into a flat desert where Taylor would have to extend supply lines further and was subject to a Santa Anna “scortched earth” policy. Bauer also faulted Taylor for not being at the battle as it started because Taylor was checking and fortifying his supply depot to the rear. That was wise, as the battle eventually made its way to just where Taylor was checking. In addition Taylor was aware that Mexican cavalry dragoons were harassing his supply lines, and by this time Taylor was deep into a foreign country — the first time in the history of the US that it was deep in a foreign country, and the longest supply lines the US would have until the World Wars. Taylor was wise to be checking his supplies as if these were overtaken his army would have been destroyed, something an old Indian fighter would understand, but not some history professor,. As it was, Taylor’s string of strong victories in Northern Mexico culminating in the victory of Buena Vista against Santa Anna were the decisive victories of the war. By the end of Buena Vista, Santa Anna’s army was rife with morale problems and desertions. He would never again be able to recruit for his defense in the South and the people of Mexico were no longer with him.
Bauer also uses a quote of Secretary of War Marcy that is highly disparaging of Taylor. From the positioning of the quote one thinks that Marcy should have known, except that Marcy was a political hack who like Polk was desperately attempting to find a way to give a Democrat credit for any victory. In addition, Marcy To denude Taylor’s advanced positions of most of his troops was unconscionable, particularly when he was this far in enemy territory.
I would implore you to do a bit more research before you state that some biography, such as Bauer’s, is a definiitive one. Bauer’s is certainly not. He obviously has biases. I would recommend David Lavender’s Climax at Buena Vista for the most detailed and definitive description of Taylor’s campaign in northern Mexico.
While Bauer did bring up some interesting points, like Taylor’s later investments in banks rather than plantations later in life, he did not provide a large amount of new facts. Part of the reason for this is that the most important of Taylor’s papers were destroyed in the Civil War when his son’s plantation, General Richard Taylor. Thus newer biographies have very little new information. The definitive book on Buena Vista, has plenty of government documents and personal accounts to provide excellent and accurate descriptions.
Of all the Generals in US history to prosecute campaigns Taylor was more outnumbered, with less supplies, further from home, that any other general in history. Neither Bauer, not Eisenhower recognize that. While Holman’s style is a bit syrupy early on, it is very good.
Pat McKim
One other thing I forgot on this. When Eisenhower discusses the Taylor biographies, he mentions that the Holman Hamilton biography is the “definiitive one.”
I just finished up the 2 volume Holman Hamilton Taylor biography, and I found them to be well written, very thoroughly researched, and overall they seemed quite fair. Unfortunately Taylor didn’t leave behind a large written record (both private and public), so piecing together his personal views on many subjects requires more effort on the part of the biographer, and there are plenty of gaps.
The first book, “Soldier of the Republic”, I found hard to get through, for reasons already mentioned by other commenters– much of Taylor’s life prior to the White House was relatively uneventful, and difficult to devote hours to reading about his moving from one location to another, and back again, etc, ad nauseum. (There were occassional breaks from the tedium when Taylor was deployed by the military.)
The second book, “Soldier in the White House”, was more interesting as it covers Taylor’s time in the White House as well as the surrounding political landscape of events that occurred during his presidency, in some detail. In many ways I found this book to be more about the ‘times’ of Taylor’s presidency than Taylor’s presidency itself. Hamilton expounded on many events, in great detail, then would circle back and tie in Taylor’s perspective on the issue. It’s as if for many events in the book Taylor was a spectator, not an active participant, which may be the reality of what happened.
Overall, one gets the sense of what Taylor was like, but without a lot of first-hand accounts from Taylor himself, I came away not really having a solid understanding of the man himself, which is a shame, after reading 1000+ pages of biography.
I don’t think these are easy books to get through, and not overly entertaining. But they are fairly informative, and as always, it’s interesting to get another perspective on major events of the time from a key player.
The best news was, Amazon was selling them for Kindle at less than $4 each, so I simply couldn’t pass that up ! (I know a lot of people don’t like the Kindle if you get the reader, not the ‘tablet’ version, it’s very easy on the eyes, and I can read for hours without much eye strain.)
Sadly I find myself unable to enjoy e-books so I had to spring for a more significant investment, but I do finally have the 2-vol Hamilton series! I expect it will satisfy my craving for something more “definitive” than the two books I previously read on Taylor but it’s going to be odd reading a thousand-plus pages and feeling like I don’t really know the man. Still, I’m definitely looking forward to this follow-up reading-
Glad to hear you’ve got the series and will read it, when you get a few spare moments. 🙂
I feed I got a pretty good sense of Taylor, but as I’ve seen, and you’ve alluded to in a number of cases, the size of the book doesn’t always correspond with the reader’s sense of understanding the person. Some of the shorter books ironically do a better job than the longer books, though admittedly, that’s not the typical case.
I’d be curious about your feedback when you finish this series.
As an aside, I’ve been reading presidential bios sequentially now for a number of months, and am just starting Lincoln (yay!). I’m no longer the least bit intimidated by large books. At this point, anything under 500 pages is not too big, whereas I remember thinking years ago that McCullough’s “John Adams” was big. Have you noticed a similar affect? The confidence I’ve gained from so much reading is an unexpected side effect, and I’m wondering if you experienced something similar?
I’ve definitely noticed that the length a book must be in order to intimidate me has grown substantially since I started this journey. By the time I read Burlingame’s two-volume biography on Lincoln (about 1,600 pages) I realized that as long as a book is engaging and stimulating…the longer the better! But there have been notable lengthy “misses” as well (I really didn’t enjoy Sandburg’s series on Lincoln…and at 3,300 pages that was quite an investment).
In response to your last question I’ve noticed that all this reading has dramatically improved my vocabulary (and I’ve gotten better at reading more quickly and with better comprehension) 🙂
If you want to read something to give you an idea of Taylor the person in his own voice or hand, I would suggest the Letters of Zachary Taylor, edited by William Bixby. It is compendium of his letters from the field in Mexico.
I just re-read parts of Smith’s bio of Grant. His description of Taylor is excellent. He mentions his sang froid which was very important. I mentioned this earlier, but with the possible exception of Washington, the career generals that became President are treated poorly until recently with both Grant and Eisenhower.
When one steps back and looks. Taylor probably has the best winning record under trying conditions that any other General. He won essentially all of his Indian War battles in difficult terrain and conditions. He figured out pacification. In Mexico he was the first US general to invade a foreign country. His first two battles were in the open iwth no advantage and yet he was significantly out numbered. He won those. His next battle was attacking one of the strongest naturally fortified cities and still outnumbered. He won. His last battle, his largest he won with most of his veterans taken away to be given to General Scott. For the most part, he had raw volunteers. He was outnumbered by over three to one and it was a hastily prepared defensive battle. He won that convincingly, but didn’t follow it up for good reason. he was still outnumbered with very poor supply lines and was not supported well by President Polk or his Army. to do this he would have been forced to follow his enemy further into Mexico through a desert with no external sources of supply with his own supply lines at risk with no support from his country. This would have been suicide, and yet one of his biographers faults him for not doing so–Bauer, who was supposedly an expert on the Mexican War.
Jackson, Taylor, Grant, and Eisenhower have often been criticized because they were not “intellectuals,” (Note Adams treatment of Grant, and the public’s view of Ike when Kennedy brought Camelot to Washington.) Of late Jackson, one of the most courageous Presidents of our time
Hello. I’ve come across a two-volume biography of Zachary Taylor that I found very enjoyable. It’s written by Holman Hamilton. The titles are Zachary Taylor: Soldier of the Republic and Zachary Taylor; Soldier in the White House. The author does a very good job of making Taylor’s life interesting by describing the life of a soldier in the American west. I finished volume one and I am starting volume two. Both volumes are available on Amazon for the Kindle at a very inexpensive price. I highly recommend this and think it will give you a broader picture of Taylor’s role in history. I really appreciate all the reviews you’ve done and have read many of the biographies you have recommended. I hope you find these enjoyable.
David, thanks. I haven’t read the two-volume bio by Hamilton but I do have it on my follow-up list and I’ve obtained both volumes. Sounds like I may need to prioritize these 🙂 I’ll be the first to admit my follow-up reading has emphasized single-volume bios and folks who possess more “pizazz” than Zachary Taylor!
In my humble opinion, I would suggest keeping Zachary Taylor on the shelves and continuing to press forward. There may be more to learn about Rough and Ready, but Eisenhower and Bauer give plenty of context. The Presidencies of Taylor and Fillmore (already on your follow-up list) would be the best option. The Compromise of 1850 is probably the most pertinent event during this 4-year period (1849-1853). It is well covered well in many other monographs and biographies of Henry Clay.
Steve,
There are a few reasons that Taylor’s biographies may not have “pizazz.” As I am sure you know, all Taylor’s papers were destroyed in the Civil War in his plantation because his son Richard who fought on the side of the Confederacy was the owner of that plantation, and the Union was only too happy to destroy it and all the Taylor records. Richard Taylor never lived there after the war and was something of a lost soul after that.
The other reason is that Bauer’s biography, which you call the “classic” and “definitive” biography was written in much the same way that McFeely wrote his Pulizer Prize winner about Grant. That was poorly and inaccurately done, and likely with malice aforethought. You mention how fine the passages in Smith’s US Grant’s bio were regarding Grant’s experiences in Mexico with “Old Rough and Ready” Taylor and “Old Fuss and Feathers” Scott. Somehow Bauer couldn’t come up with the same ability or description.
I found many inaccuracies and gross misinterpretations that both made the book less interesting and unfair to Taylor. In Bauer’s book…
for example, he cites Sec of War Marcy as saying that Taylor was a bad general. This is particularly galling given the fact that Marcy under supplied Taylor and with Polk negotiated and supported General Santa Anna to return to Mexico to stop the war. Santa Anna took the support and then did the opposite. Then after Taylor won three battles, Polk with Marcy then stripped Taylor of 80% of his veterans (because he thought Taylor was becoming a good Whig candidate for the Presidency and Polk and Marcy wanted a Democrat) and sent them all to Scott in the South. It was as though Polk and Marcy wanted to see Taylor defeated and discredited solely for political purposes which would have been ruinous for the US in the War.
At the ensuing Battle of Buena Vista, Taylor was outnumbered almost 3:1 by Santa Anna. Taylor had mostly raw militia troops, and yet he won a defensive battle by moving to high ground, against President Polk’s direction from Washing DC to stay in Monterey which would not have been nearly as defensible. By traversing the entire battlefield always arriving at a critical point in the battle Taylor was greatly personally responsible for the victory if for no other reason than morale. At one point in time he even had to bolster his second in command during the battle. Yet Bauer like Marcy had very little experience to understand the battles and described Taylor’s performance poorly and inaccurately. (There are two excellent books on the Battles of Monterrey (A Perfect Gibraltar) and Buena Vista that show how well Taylor and his Army performed. Part of this, as US Grant alludes in another posting–next–,is that Taylor was an excellent delegator.
Taylor won all 4 battles in the Mexican War as an underdog, outnumbered. All were different battle: open field, following up a victory, street to street city battle and a defensive battle. It was he that broke the will of the Mexican Army, not Scott, as the American people recognized in the election–Scott was a Whilg candidate as well. While the Mexican rank and file fought heroically to defend their home Mexico City and its approaches, Santa Anna and his generals like Ampudia had already been beaten. But none of this comes out in Bauer’s biased biography.
In addition, even Bauer briefly admits with little fanfare that Taylor was the first to conduct counterinsurgency warfare as the Marines did successfully in Vietnam. Taylor had an extremely successful military career winning battles in the War of 1812, many in the Indian Wars in the interim and all 4 in the Mexican American War. The Wars of 1812 and Indian Wars had few successful commanders.
Marcy and Polk never left Washington and with communications requiring well over a month for round trip ask-and-answered understanding were never in a position to know the situation, the topography, or the morale. Since both viewed this as a political war (Read A Wicked War to see how much), they were in no position to comment, yet Bauer cites Sec of War Marcy as though he was an authoritative opinion. I have served far too many incompetent SECDEF’s to know that is rarely true. That to me his was dereliction of duty for a historian. It shows at best Bauer’s disinterest.
As President Taylor had a very short time–a year–before his death. Yet Eisenhower, his other other single volume biographer noted that Taylor was the last hope to stop the progression to the Civil War and likely would have, had he lived. He was a Southerner who did NOT want to extend slavery. That IS rare. Bauer doesn’t put 2+2 together to realize that Taylor has thd experience in the far north (at that time the North of the Mid West) and in the West, and realized that slavery was neither practical nor wanted in that part of the country He realized this despite being a plantation owner, much like George Washington spending time in New York and NJ and realizing that the North didn’t need slavery but rather had the industrial revolution. Taylor’s purchase of railroad stock before the war the indicated that he was aware that industrialization would destroy slavery and that the whole country did not support cotton production that was a boon to slavery. Bauer never delved into this.
One the keys to Taylor’s perspective was that he was a good businessman. Like Washington he was always interest in his plantations/farms while on the march in the “field” of battle. He understood the economics of slavery often from afar while in the field.
Taylor did NOT consider himself partisan and tried to stay above politics. That comes out in the book of his correspondence that I recommended in a prior post. Again like Washington he considered himself above politics, but thought Polk an opportunist and Scott less than honor and insufferably self centered — see the next post.
I have read all of Holman’s 1st vol of Taylor and a small part of the second. It is good, probably like most bios written the 1950’s a little bit too pro the subject, but very informative.
Bauer on the other hand is disinterested in his subject and likely wrote it because he had the information already in hand. There were so many things that Bauer never delved into in order to make Taylor’s an interesting or authoritative biography.
I believe Eisenhower who had a much understanding of war in general produced a much better biography.
it is bad enough that Bauer wrote a poor biography, but worse that while calling it lacking in “pizazz” you would call it “authoritative” and “classic.” For those who wish to take the time Taylor was an iconoclastic general with characteristics similar to other Warriors in the White House Washington and Grant.
Hi Pat,
You mention something in this post that I’ve often thought about. I wonder how differently slavery, and the resulting civil war, might have turned out had Taylor lived. Taylor did not want slavery beyond its current borders, and he was a strong personality not likely to cow to external pressures, like typical politicians. I doubt the 1850 compromise would have happened if Taylor lived, at least in the form it took. But Taylor wasn’t a political animal, and it’s possible not much might have changed in the final result. (except maybe the war might have started later than 1860, who knows?)
It’s possible the forces involved were way too big for any one person to overcome. It’s still interesting nonetheless to think about.
Len
thanks. agreed. There is an interesting book tough to find. The American Mind in the Mid Nineteenth Century. Southerners thought they were more moral than money grubbing capitalists in the north. I don’t think they could have been disabused from that. The southern cavalier was carefree and independent of his slaves despite the fact that many were close to bankrupt. It would have been nice to see President Taylor try.
Steve,
These passages are from US Grant’s auto biography published by Mark Twain who most impressed by them. How one could not be impressed by a man that impressed Grant so much that patterned his own style and generalship after him.
This is not about the man, but rather about the writers — specifically Bauer. Holman does a better job, but there wasn’t quite as much research regarding the battles and likely some of the correspondence as well that there is today.
“I had now been in battle with the two leading commanders conducting armies in a foreign land. The contrast between the two was very marked. General Taylor never wore uniform, but dressed himself entirely for comfort. He moved about the field in which he was operating to see through his own eyes the situation. Often he would be without staff officers, and when he was accompanied by them there was no prescribed order in which they followed. He was very much Given to sit his horse side-ways—with both feet on one side—particularly on the battle-field. General Scott was the reverse in all these particulars. He always worse all the uniform prescribed or allowed by law when he inspected his lines; word would be sent to all division and brigade commander in advance, notifying them of the hour when the commanding general might be expected. This was done so that all the army might be under arms to salute their chief as he passed. On these occasions he wore his dress uniform, cocked hat, aiguillettes, sabre and spurs. His staff proper, besides all officers constructively on his –engineers, inspectors, quartermaster, etc., that could be spared—followed, also in uniform and in prescribed order. Orders were prepared with great care and evidently with the view that they should be a history of what followed (Ed. ie that they be scrupulously obeyed no matter what)
“In their modes of expressing thought, these two generals contrasted quite as strongly as in their other characteristics. General Scott was precise in language, cultivated a style peculiarly his own; was proud of his rhetoric; not averse to speaking of himself, often in the third person, and he could bestow praise upon the person he was talking about without the least embarrassment. Taylor was a not a conversationalist, but on paper he could put his meaning so plainly that there could be no mistaking it. He knew how to express what he wanted to say in the fewest well-chosen words, but would not sacrifice meaning to the construction of high-sounding sentences. But with their opposite characteristics both were great and successful soldiers; both were true, patriotic and upright in all their dealings. Both were pleasant to serve under—Taylor was pleasant to serve with. Scott saw more through the eyes of his staff officers than through his own. His plans were deliberately prepared, and fully expressed in orders. Taylor saw for himself. And gave orders to meet the emergency without reference to how they would read in history.
Personal Memoirs of US Grant Complete Annotated Edition pp 93-94
“It has always seemed to me that this northern route to the City of Mexico, would have been the better one to have taken. But my later experience has taught me two lessons: first, that things are seen plainer after the events have occurred; second, that the most confident critics are generally those who know the least about the matter criticized.
Personal Memoirs of US Grant Complete Annotated Edition pp 114-115