Taft National Park

The yellow is authentic.

I visited the William Howard Taft National Historic Site in Cincinnati last weekend. This is his boyhood home, not the home of he and Nellie. This house was bought by his father, Alphonso, and his second wife, Louise Taft (this was Taft's mother in case you were wondering). The Tafts bought the house in 1851 (WHT was born in 1857) two acres (there is NOT still two acres here in downtown) for $10,000. After Alphonso's death, Louise rented it out and then eventually sold it and it was turned into apartments. The National Parks Service eventually came to own it and had to restore the entire building, which included removing an additional story to put the widow's walk back on.

This museum includes a video and several exhibits plus the house tour. There are actually only a few rooms restored to look like the original Taft house and then a museum with exhibits on the top floor. There isn't a lot here, but the NPS has done a nice job with what they have. There is also a lot in this museum on the entire Taft family and their descendants - not surprising considering they are still a power on Ohio (the previous governor of Ohio was Robert Taft II).

The website also offers curriculum materials for teachers. The Taft family believed strongly in education and all the boys received excellent educations and most law degrees. Taft was not only President, but Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He and his father were both Secretaries of War and several of his brothers and their families also ended up in politics.

Some things to remember if you visit:

• The museum is open 7 days a week, but does close at 4 PM each day so make sure to plan to be there early.
• The museum is actually FREE (yes, really!).
• These are guided tours that start every 1/2 hour, but then you have as much time as you want to go through the exhibits.
• The parking lot is quite small, so you might need to find alternative places to park if the museum is busy that day. The museum itself is very easy to find and there is a sign on the freeway.
• This museum actually allows unrestricted use of photography (which made me, the archivist, cringe and know I would never actually take an interior picture), so bring your camera if you want.

Giving Gifts

This week I have a two-year-old to shop for. I haven’t done that for some time as my children are in their 20s and teens and my youngest nephew is fast approaching his upper elementary years. I don’t even know what’s trendy right now for toddlers. I believe we are going to go towards books and Dora the Explorer, however. I love the giving, I adore the shopping, but actually getting the right thing….that’s the part that drives me insane.

You can go back pretty far in history and find that government leaders have been exchanging gifts as far back as ancient times. This week’s wordless image at History Is Elementary was a gift of state. It is customary when heads of state visit they exchange some sort of gift. These visits are arranged by the Department of State, and there is a method of protocol that is strictly adhered to during the entire visit.

The office of the Chief of Protocol arranges and coordinates all state visits as well as visits our president makes abroad. The cermonial division of the Office of Protocol is responsible for the appropriate selection of gifts to be given by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, and their respective spouses to foreign dignitaries.

Information regarding the handling of gifts and their legal status can be found here.

An article from the New York Times relates Abraham Lincoln, who did not have to disclose any gifts he received, was inaugurated in a suit that was provided to him as a gift. Among the many other things he received was a John Hancock autograph and several potions and laxitives. Yes, that’s right….laxitives. He turned down, however, a herd of elephants from the king of Siam.

Tokens and Treasures connects to some explanations regarding some very interesting gifts presented to U.S. Presidents all the way back to Hoover.

The particular piece of jewelry I shared for the wordless image this week is an auquamarine and diamond brooch given by His Excellency Arthur da Costa e Silva, President-elect of Brazil at the end of January, 1967 during a state visit to Washington D.C. You can see the toasts given at the official state dinner for President Johnson and President-elect Silva here.

The brooch can be seen on exhibit along with many of the state gift items presented to the President of the United States during the Johnson Administration. The two-inch long auquamarine is tear-dropped in shape and is set in platinum. It can also be worn as a pendant. Nine diamonds are found on each side leading up to five brilliant cut diamonds topped with four baguettes set at angles. Mrs. Johnson wore the piece of jewelry during the remainder of her husband’s term in office.

*the first image with this post is from the official state dinner for the Republic of India and is courtesy of the White House
*the pendant image is courtesy of the Archival Research Catalog of the National Archives and Records Administration.

Poll: Which of these former Presidents would you hate see the most as President again if he came back from the dead?

The poll for "Which of these former Presidents would you hate see the most as President again if he came back from the dead?" has closed. The winner (or loser depending on how you see it) was James Buchanan with 35%. The second place finisher was Warren G. Harding with 26%. Richard Nixon was a close third with 23% while Franklin Pierce came in last with 14%.

Thanks to all who participated in this poll.

President Grant Comedy

Mindless President Grant Fun? You decide. The description reads, "Star sightings are an everyday occurrence in Los Angeles. But catching a glimpse of a dead Civil War-era president working as a bar-back is definitely cause for a double take - or another drink."

David Rice Atchison - Never the President

There is an annoying bit of presidential "trivia" that keeps coming up when I am surfing online. Namely, it is the myth that a Senator from Missouri (David Rice Atchison) was President of the United States for one day on March 4th, 1849.

The claim is that Atchison technically was President of the United States as President James Polk's term expired at midnight, March 3rd. President Zachary Taylor refused to be sworn into office on a Sunday, March 4th. Taylor's Vice Presidential running mate, Millard Fillmore, likewise was also not inaugurated. The theory then goes then that as President Pro Tempore, under the presidential succession law in place at the time, Atchison was President on March 4th.

Alas, the theory makes no sense. This is just bad history. David Rice Atchison never took the oath of office on March 4th, 1849 either. It does not matter that he was third in line to the presidency. There was no president on March 4th, 1849 if the basis of this debate is on who took an oath of office to be president. Either there was no President on this day or Zachary Taylor was technically President even though he had yet to have taken the oath.

Atchison himself kept this in perspective although he believed he may have been President. He wrote:

"It was in this way: Polk went out of office on the 3d of March 1849, on Saturday at 12 noon. The next day, the 4th, occurring on Sunday, Gen. Taylor was not inaugurated. He was not inaugurated till Monday, the 5th, at 12 noon. It was then canvassed among Senators whether there was an interregnum (a time during which a country lacks a government). It was plain that there was either an interregnum or I was the President of the United States being chairman of the Senate, having succeeded Judge Mangum of North Carolina. The judge waked me up at 3 o'clock in the morning and said jocularly that as I was President of the United States he wanted me to appoint him as secretary of state. I made no pretense to the office, but if I was entitled in it I had one boast to make, that not a woman or a child shed a tear on account of my removing any one from office during my incumbency of the place. A great many such questions are liable to arise under our form of government." (September 1872 issue of the Plattsburg Lever.)

This is a bit of bad history that annoys me. However, I guess it is harmless. It is kind of like saying Texas is not legally part of the United States because technically a Joint Resolution of Congress can not be used to annex territory under international law. Read the Legal status of Texas article at Wikipedia if you want to see how some have fun with de jure (technically) versus de facto (in reality). Maybe Atchison was the only de jure President of the United States who was not also de facto? Kind of meaningless but good for unproductive history debates I guess.