Welcome to the Deep Dive, where we take a stack
of sources and really pull out those crucial
nuggets of knowledge, giving you a shortcut to
being truly well informed. Today, we're plunging
into a fascinating, often overlooked corner of
American history. We're focusing on a figure
widely considered one of the least memorable
presidents, Chester A. Arthur. Least memorable.
It is a striking label, isn't it? It really is.
But does that truly reflect his impact? Or is
there maybe a compelling, perhaps even transformative
story waiting just beneath that sort of historical
anonymity? That's exactly the question, right?
The perception of Arthur as forgettable, well,
it often overshadows a genuinely profound and
sometimes yet deeply ironic transformation he
went through. He was a man absolutely steeped
in the machine politics of his time, yet his
administration brought about these significant,
really surprising changes that echo even today.
Public perception can be a tricky thing. It often
obscures the true historical significance. Absolutely.
So let's formally introduce our subject. Chester
Alan Arthur, the 21st president of the United
States, he served from 1881 to 1885. And his
path to the Oval Office, well, it was nothing
short of dramatic. He'd previously served as
the 20th vice president under James A. Garfield.
And the circumstances that really thrust him
into the highest office, they're a deep dive
in themselves, aren't they? Full of political
machinations, personal tragedies, unexpected
turns of the Gilded Age. And that's really our
mission in this deep dive. to peel back those
layers, those surface -level historical footnotes.
We're drawing from some comprehensive biographical
accounts, historical analyses, sources that trace
Arthur's life right from his birth through his
post -presidency. Our goal is to uncover those
rich details that reveal his complex character,
the surprising shifts in his policies, and the
often -overlooked legacy he left behind. We want
to get at the why and the how of his time in
office, understand the forces that shaped him,
the key decisions he made. Think of us as your
expert guides, sort of sifting through all this
material to give you a truly informed perspective
on a figure who, well, defied expectations at
almost every turn. We promise an engaging, fact
-filled conversation. Hopefully you'll leave
with a completely new understanding of Chester
A. Arthur. So settle in, because this story begins
not in the halls of power, but in a quiet Vermont
town. One, early life, family roots, and the
persistent birther controversies. OK, so let's
start with Arthur's early life. His birth in
Fairfield, Vermont, October 5, 1829. Now, here's
an intriguing little human detail right off the
bat. Later in life, and apparently out of what
one biographer just called vanity, he'd sometimes
claim he was born in 1830. Really? just shaved
a year off. Yeah, just like that. It's a small
thing, but maybe it hints at a certain awareness
of image and early glimpse into the man. That
is fascinating. And it certainly hints at a character
who was, yeah, aware of public perception. His
family background was quite diverse, actually.
Provides this rich tapestry of influences and
kind of sets the stage for a life marked by movement
and strong convictions. His mother, Movena Stone,
was born in Vermont, English, and Welsh roots.
Her maternal grandfather, Uriah Stone, he actually
served in the Continental Army during the Revolution.
Wow. And on his father's side, William Arthur,
born in County Antrim, Ireland, 1796. Presbyterian
family. He graduated college in Belfast, then
made that big journey across the Atlantic, migrating
to lower Canada around 1819, 1820. And it was
there, in Dunham, Quebec, not far from the Vermont
border, actually, that Malvina Stone and William
Arthur met. They got married on April 12th, 1821.
So a real blend of these American and Irish influences.
Yeah. And after their first child, Regina was
born in Canada. The family moved pretty quickly
to Vermont. That really marked the beginning
of a lifetime of relocations for young Chester.
William Arthur's career path, it was varied and
had a big impact on the family. He started as
a teacher, then briefly studied law. OK. But
then. In Waterville, Vermont, he made this profound
shift. He left his legal studies, left his Presbyterian
roots, and joined the Free Will Baptists. For
the rest of his life, he served as a minister
in that denomination, becoming an incredibly
outspoken abolitionist. Oh, that's key. Absolutely.
Because his fervent anti -slavery views, well,
they were often unpopular with some congregations,
especially in certain areas. And that directly
led to the family moving frequently across Vermont
and upstate New York. You can imagine the constant
upheaval for a young family. Oh, definitely.
That constant movement must have shaped him somehow.
Chester was the fifth of nine children, and his
names. Pretty straightforward, actually. Chester,
after Dr. Chester Abel, who helped with his birth,
and Alan for his paternal grandfather. Kind of
a glimpse into the practicalities of life back
then. Yeah, simple enough. So as you can imagine,
with a minister father moving around because
of his strong abolitionist stance, Chester's
childhood was just this dynamic series of moves.
The family lived in numerous towns across Vermont,
Burlington, Jericho, Waterville, and then across
upstate New York, too, places like York, Perry,
Greenwich, Lansingburg, Husick. Wow. Quite the
list. Yeah. They finally settled in Schenectady
around 1844. So he had this really varied, maybe
even a bit disorienting experience of small town
America. And yet, despite all those moves and
the challenges they must have presented, early
accounts describe him as a boy who was frank
and open in manners and genial in disposition.
Friendly kid, it sounds like. He showed his political
leanings pretty early, too. A wig. He even got
into a brawl supporting Henry Clay in the heated
1844 election. Really? A future president in
a street fight? Apparently so. And he also showed
a strong connection to his Irish heritage, supporting
the Fenian Brotherhood, that Irish nationalist
group, by famously wearing a green coat, a nod
to his father's roots. His academic journey,
though, was surprisingly consistent amidst all
the moving. Prep schools like the Lyceum of Union
Village, a grammar school in Schenectady. Then
he enrolled at Union College in 1845, studied
the classics, joined Psi Upsilon fraternity,
got elected president of the debate society,
even inducted into Phi Beta Kappa. Pretty accomplished.
And he taught during winter breaks to pay for
it all, shows some serious work ethic early on.
Definitely. Okay, now this next bit, it might
sound strikingly familiar to anyone listening
today. Chester Arthur, the future president,
actually faced a kind of birther controversy.
That's right. It's almost uncanny, isn't it?
Yeah. When he was nominated for vice president
in 1880, his political opponents, notably this
New York lawyer Arthur P. Hinman, first floated
the idea that Arthur was born in Ireland. Okay.
When that didn't really stick, Hinman pivoted,
spreading a new rumor. that Arthur was actually
born in Canada. And this wasn't just mudsling,
right? This had serious constitutional implications.
Exactly. These claims directly challenged his
eligibility for the presidency under the Natural
Born Citizen Clause of the Constitution. That
clause, designed to ensure a president's loyalty,
meant if he wasn't born on U .S. soil, he legally
couldn't be president. It was a serious threat.
weaponized by his opponents. But the facts just
didn't back it up, did they? Not at all. There
were multiple U .S. census entries from before
he was politically prominent. The Arthur family
Bible itself, numerous contemporary newspaper
articles, even ones talking about his 1871 appointment
as collector, all clearly listed his birthplace
as Fairfield, Vermont. Right. And what's really
crucial here is the lack of any plausible motive
for him to have faked these records. Back when
he was born, or even in his early career, the
presidency wasn't even remotely on the horizon
for him or his family. The idea that they'd meticulously
alter documents years in advance for some unforeseen
future run, it doesn't hold water. The evidence
overwhelmingly points to Vermont. These birther
claims were pure Gilded Age political smearing.
Two. early career, from law to pioneering civil
rights advocacy. So after graduating from Union
College in 1848, Arthur didn't immediately become
a lawyer. He actually kept teaching full -time
for a while. Places like Schottacoke and North
Pownall, Vermont. Yeah, all while studying law
on the side. It really shows how focused and
determined he was. Balancing work, academic ambitions.
And here's a fun bit of trivia. James A. Garfield,
the man Arthur would eventually succeed as president,
taught penmanship at that same North Pound Old
School just three years later. Isn't that something?
though apparently they never actually crossed
paths there. Anyway, in 1853, after studying
law in Ballston Spa, New York, Arthur had saved
enough to make the big move to New York City.
Right. There, he started to read law in the office
of Verastus D. Culver. Culver was a prominent
abolitionist lawyer, a family friend. This was
a pivotal move. Put him on the path to law and
maybe unknowingly towards civil rights work.
He got admitted to the New York bar in 1854,
joined Culver's firm. It became Culver, Parker
and Arthur. And pretty quickly he got involved
in some really groundbreaking legal stuff, especially
civil rights. That's surprising for the guy known
later as a patronage boss. It really is where
his early career takes this unexpected turn.
He was actively involved in the landmark Lemon
v. New York case. What was that about? It was
a habeas corpus action. against Jonathan Lemon,
a Virginia slaveholder just passing through New
York with eight enslaved people. Culver, Arthur's
senior partner, argued successfully that New
York law automatically freed any slave arriving
in the state. Huge victory for abolitionists.
Affirmed New York as a free state, he was upheld
by the new Accord of Appeals in 1860. In Arthur's
role. Minor in that specific case, but he was
definitely an active participant in a firm deeply
committed to abolitionism. It shows this early
alignment with principles of justice and freedom,
foundational stuff we might not associate with
him later. And that wasn't the only one. There
was another huge civil rights case in 1854 where
Arthur was the lead attorney, representing Elizabeth
Jennings Graham, a black woman physically thrown
off a New York City streetcar just because of
her race. Imagine the courage that took. for
her to sue and for a young white lawyer like
Arthur to take her case back then. Absolutely.
And the outcome was monumental. Arthur won. The
verdict didn't just compensate her, it directly
led to the desegregation of all New York City
streetcar lines. Wow. That's huge. It really
is. A powerful early example of his direct impact
on civil rights shows his legal skill, his underlying
sense of justice, long before he get deep into
the often morally gray world of high stakes politics.
It definitely challenges that simple narrative
that he was only a spoilsman. On the personal
side, things were moving, too. In 1856, he started
courting Ellen Lewis Herndon, daughter of William
Lewis Herndon, a respected Virginia Naval officer.
They got engaged, but then tragedy struck. Her
father was lost at sea. They married in 1859
in Manhattan. They'd go on to have three kids,
William Lewis, who sadly died young. Chester
Allen II, known as Allen, and a daughter, Ellen,
or Nell. So family life starting. Yeah. But he
still had these other interests, right? Military
stuff. Yeah, he became Judge Advocate General
for the Second Brigade of the New York Militia,
an early sign of his administrative skills, maybe.
And there was that brief kind of ill -fated trip
out to Kansas with a new law partner. Right,
during Bleeding Kansas. That whole violent clash
between pro and anti -slavery settlers. Arthur
firmly sided with the anti -slavery group, even
when they're planning to set up a law practice.
But the rough frontier life probably didn't suit
the refined New Yorkers much. Apparently not.
After just three or four months, he was back
in New York City. Seems he preferred the established,
even if politically charged, urban scene. His
talents were clearly more in administration and
law than roughing it on the frontier. Three,
Civil War service and entry into New York politics.
So when the Civil War breaks out, Arthur's administrative
talents really come into play. Yeah. 1861, he
gets appointed to Governor Edwin D. Morgan's
military staff as engineer in chief. Sounds kind
of minor on paper, right? It does, but it became
far more significant than that title suggests.
What started as a fairly typical patronage appointment
of minor importance suddenly became critical
when the war began in April 61. Northern states,
especially New York, the biggest, faced this
unprecedented chaotic job, raising, equipping,
housing massive volunteer armies. And Arthur's
skills, his organization, that's what they needed.
Precisely. His meticulous abilities were perfect
for bringing order to that chaos. And his rise
was quick. Commissioned brigadier general assigned
to the state militia's quartermaster department,
basically the state's chief logistics guy. And
he proved incredibly efficient. Housing, feeding,
outfitting the thousands and thousands of troops
pouring into New York City, getting them ready
for battle. This efficiency got noticed. Promotions
followed. Inspector General of the State Militia
in March 62, then Quartermaster General that
July. It says a lot that he actually turned down
combat commands, right? Including the 9th New
York Volunteer Infantry and the Metropolitan
Brigade? Yeah. He declined them at Governor Morgan's
request. He chose to stay in that vital administrative
role, understanding how crucial it was for the
war effort. The closest he got to the front was
inspecting New York troops near Fredericksburg,
Virginia in May 62. His focus was clearly logistics
and supply that crucial, often unsung, part of
wartime success. He saved lives and got troops
ready. But like so many jobs back then, it was
inherently a political appointment. Exactly.
So no big surprise when he was removed in January
1863. A Democrat, Horatio Seymour, became governor,
replacing the Republican Morgan. Spoils system
in action, even during a war. His removal, while
expected politically, actually opened new doors.
Arthur went back to practicing law. His firm,
Arthur and Gardiner, it flourished because of
all the contacts and the reputation for efficiency
he'd built during the war. On a much sadder note
though, 1863 was also when his two -year -old
son, William, died suddenly. Oh, that's tragic.
Yeah, deeply affected both Arthur and his wife,
Ellen. They apparently lavished even more attention
on their surviving kids. Chester Allen Jr. and
Nell. That personal Greek probably shaped the
man who reentered politics later. And as the
war ended, the political landscape shifted again.
New opportunities opened up for guys and Governor
Morgan's Republican machine, Arthur included.
This is when he really aligns himself firmly
with the conservative wing of the Republican
Party, led by big names like Thurlow Weed and
crucially for Arthur, the powerful Roscoe Conkling.
That connection would shape the next and maybe
most infamous part of his career. Four. The rise
of a New York political machine man, Conkling's
protege. So Arthur jumps right into the thick
of New York Republican machine politics. It was
a robust, often pretty rough world. Yeah, we
see an early attempt in 1866. He tried but failed
to get the job of naval officer at the New York
Custom House. A really coveted lucrative post,
second only to the collector, shows he knew where
the power and money were. His ambition was clear.
But the political climate then, it was all about
loyalty and hard work on the machine's behalf.
That was more important than holding specific
political office. It was a system where party
service, not policy brilliance, was the way up.
Exactly. And you need to understand the players
here. The stalwarts, led by Conkling, Arthur
was one of them. They were the old guard Republicans,
fiercely committed to the spoils system, party
patronage. They believed loyalty and rewards
built strong parties. And they were opposed by?
The half breeds, associated with James G. Blaine.
Generally more open to civil service reform,
but maybe more for practical reasons. Cleaning
up the party image, not totally dismantling the
system that still helped them. Got it. So Arthur,
as a stalwart, knew this system inside out. Absolutely.
And his connection with Roscoe Conkling elected
to the Senate in 1867, that was pivotal. Conkling
saw Arthur's talent and loyalty, and he noticed
Arthur and facilitated his rise in the party.
That relationship was the bedrock of Arthur's
political power. And rise he did. Became chairman
of the New York City Republican Executive Committee
in 1868. shows his organizational skill, his
political smarts. But this intense focus on politics,
it came at a personal cost, didn't it? His wife,
Ellen, reportedly resented his continual absence
from the family home on party business. Paints
a picture of a man totally dedicated to politics,
maybe too much so for his family. It certainly
humanizes the political machine a bit. The Conkling
machine backed General Ulysses S. Grant hard
for president in 68. Arthur was right there raising
crucial funds. It was a time of fierce rivalries,
especially with the Tammany Hall Democratic machine
in New York City. They backed Grant's opponent
Horatio Seymour. And Grant won nationally, but
Seymour actually carried New York State. Yeah,
narrowly. Shows how intense the local competition
was and how important guys like Arthur were for
mobilizing the vote. Arthur's involvement just
kept deepening. In 1869, he became counsel to
the New York City Tax Commission. Lucrative political
appointment, salary of $10 ,000 a year. Which
today is? Over $248 ,000. Significant money.
But his time there was short. He resigned in
1870 when Democrats won control of the state
legislature. Shows how precarious these patronage
jobs were you were in as long as your party was
in power. Five. Collector of the Port of New
York. The apex of patronage and corruption. OK,
so after climbing the ranks of the New York Republican
machine, Arthur's about to step into this massive
role, collector of the Port of New York, really
the peak of patronage power, and for reformers,
a huge symbol of the era's corruption. Exactly.
In 1870, President Grant, looking to consolidate
support, basically gave Roscoe Conkling significant
control over New York patronage, including the
hugely profitable Custom House. After the previous
collector, Thomas Murphy, resigned, Grant nominated
Arthur in December 1871. And the New York Times
had that interesting quote about him, Ray, even
though he wasn't a big public figure. Yeah, they
said something like, his name very seldom rises
to the surface. And yet moving like a mighty
undercurrent, this man, during the last 10 years,
has done more to mold the course of the Republican
Party in this state than any other one man. They
saw his quiet influence. This wasn't just an
appointment. It was the appointment in New York.
And the power of the collector. It was immense,
wasn't it? Controlling nearly a thousand jobs,
overseeing tariffs at the busiest port in the
U .S. Absolutely. It was a political gold mine,
a cash cow for the party, and the financial incentives
were just staggering. A key part was the moiety
system. Explain that again. Okay, imagine you,
the listener. are a senior customs employee,
maybe even the collector. You get a percentage
of NECs, cargos, and fines levied on importers
trying to cheat the system. Wow. So the people
stopping fraud profited directly from it. Exactly.
Clear conflict of interest. A legal way to get
incredibly wealthy. Perfect example of the Gilded
Age blurring lines between public service and
personal gain. This system boosted Earther's
income to more than $50 ,000 a year. That's like...
over $1 .3 million today, way more than the president's
salary, letting keep up his reputation for fancy
clothes, a lavish lifestyle. cemented that gentleman
boss image. What's really fascinating though
is this paradox. How could he be popular and
efficient while running a system seen as so corrupt?
He had this unique reputation as collector, didn't
he? He did. He was considered one of the era's
more popular collectors among people who actually
dealt with the Custom House. Known for getting
along with subordinates, rarely fired anyone,
partly because his predecessor had already filled
the place with conkling loyalists. Okay. And
he was popular within the party because he was
so good at collecting campaign assessments, basically.
mandatory donations from staff. And he was great
at placing party leaders' friends in jobs, rewarding
loyalty, keeping the machines strong. As the
reform movement grew, Arthur, maybe as a nod
to critics or maybe just politics, even renamed
those assessments voluntary contributions in
1872. But the core idea, leveraging government
jobs for party money, stayed put, showed his
mastery of the system, even as it was coming
under fire. Which brings us to the big clash.
President Rutherford B. Hayes. The 1876 election,
Hayes wins a Republican nomination, pledges to
reform the very patronage system Arthur represented,
direct threat. Hayes didn't waste time. 1877,
he goes right after Conkling's machine, specifically
the New York Custom House, appoints the Jay Commission
to investigate. And their findings were bad.
Damning. Custom House overstaffed with political
appointments, said 20 % of employees were expendable.
Hayes then issues this bold executive order forbidding
assessments, barring federal office holders from
political management. They refuse to obey the
president's order. Open defiance. Farzer even
turned down an offer from Secretary Sherman,
the consulship in Paris, if he'd just resigned.
shows how committed he was to his faction, his
refusal to be bought off. So Hayes demanded their
resignations. They refused. Hayes sends new nominees
to the Senate, including Theodore Roosevelt Sr.
But Conkling, chairing the powerful Senate Commerce
Committee, retaliates, gets the committee to
unanimously reject all the nominees. The full
Senate follows, rejecting Roosevelt and Prince.
Merritt only got confirmed because the surveyor's
term expired, creating a vacancy Hayes could
fill. But Arthur's job was only safe until...
July 1878. Hayes was relentless. He used a congressional
recess, finally fired Arthur and Cornell, replaced
them with recess appointments. Merritt and Silas
W. Burt. Arthur again turns down the Paris Consul
general job. Stays in the fight. This whole episode
really sets up that incredible paradox, doesn't
it? It really does. How does this guy, so deep
in the patronage system, willing to defy a president
over it, become the champion of civil service
reform in his own presidency? That's the transformation
we need to get into. So after getting fired,
Arthur doesn't sulk. He jumps right back into
New York politics, works for Edward Cooper's
election as NYC mayor. Then, September 1879,
he gets another key post. Chairman of the New
York State Republican Executive Committee, leads
the party in his state until October 81. shows
his resilience, his continued influence. And
he and Conkling, they pull off a big win in the
1879 state elections, right? Getting stalwart
nominees elected. Yeah, a clear slapback at President
Hayes and their rivals within the party show
the machine still had muscle. But amidst this
political comeback, Arthur suffers this terrible
personal blow. January 1880, while he's up in
Albany organizing things, his wife, Ellen, died
suddenly. pneumonia. Oh, that's awful. It hit
him incredibly hard. He was devastated and perhaps
wracked with guilt over his frequent absences.
He never remarried. That grief undoubtedly shaped
the man who was about to face this unbelievable
turn of events. Which brings us to the 1880 Republican
National Convention, a real chaotic scene. stalwarts,
Arthur and Conkling leading the charge, pushing
hard for ex -president Grant's third term. Their
rivals, the half -breeds, backing James G. Blaine.
Classic Republican faction fight. When the convention
just did locks, right? Literally. After an astonishing
36 ballots, neither Grant nor Blaine can get
a majority. This leads to the totally unexpected
selection of a dark horse, James A. Garfield.
Ohio congressman, Civil War general, sees neither
a hardcore stalwart nor a half -breed, a compromise
nobody saw coming. But Garfield knew he couldn't
win the general election without the New York
stalwarts, that massive voting bloc. So they
had to offer the vice presidency to one of Conkling's
guys. Levi P. Morton, New York banker, congressman,
he was the first choice. But after talking to
Conkling, he turned it down, thought the Republicans
would lose. So then they go to Arthur. Right.
Conkling again advises him to say no. But Arthur,
maybe seeing an opportunity Conkling missed,
thought otherwise and accepted. There's that
famous maybe apocryphal story of Arthur telling
Conkling, the office of the vice president is
a greater honor than I ever dreamed of attaining.
Whether it happened exactly like that or not,
it captures the moment. Conkling, eventually,
swallowed his pride and campaigned for the ticket.
Party unity, even if grudging. And the 1880 election
against the Democrat, General Winfield Scott
Hancock? It was incredibly close, wasn't it?
One of the tightest ever. It really was. The
Republicans started off using the bloody shirt
tactic, waving the Civil War flag, basically,
saying electing Democrats would undo the Union
victory. But that was wearing thin by then. Yeah.
15 years after the war, Union generals on both
tickets. It wasn't as effective. So they quickly
shifted focus to the protective tariff, argued
lowering it would cost American jobs. That hit
home in swing states like New York and Indiana.
And Hancock made that gaffe about the tariff
being a local question. Exactly. Made him look
uninformed on a huge national issue. Didn't help
him. And Arthur's role as New York chair was
crucial here. Raising money, getting out the
vote. Absolutely critical. His machine delivered.
And the result. A razor thin win. Republicans
carried New York by just 20 ,000 votes. Nationally,
popular vote margin was only 7 ,018 votes. Record
turnout, 78 .4 percent. Electoral college was
more decisive. 214 to 155. So Garfield and Arthur
win. But the relationship soured fast. Arthur
tried to get Garfield to appoint stalwarts to
key cabinet jobs, especially Treasury, to honor
the deal. Garfield refused. Pointedly appointed
James G. Blaine, Conkling's archenemy, as Secretary
of State, froze out the stalwarts, signaled his
independence. Ouch! Yeah. That plus Arthur made
this ill -considered speech before inauguration,
hinting at dirty tricks in Indiana's election.
By Inauguration Day, March 4th, 1881, the president
and V .P. were clearly estranged, barely speaking.
Arthur's first job as V .P. put him right in
the spotlight, though, casting the earliest tie
-breaking vote in Senate history. That's right.
To give Republicans control of all the Senate
committees? Huge for the party agenda. But the
stalwarts took another big hit around then, didn't
they? Conkling and Platt resigning from the Senate.
Yeah, a dramatic protest against Garfield, appointing
William H. Robertson as collector of the Port
of New York, Arthur's old job, seen as a direct
insult to their patronage power. But their gamble
backfired. They failed to get re -elected by
the New York legislature. Huge blow to their
prestige weakened the stalwarts further and left
Arthur politically kind of isolated. His main
patron, Conkling, was losing clout. The pivotal
tragic moment, July 10, 1881. Arthur gets the
horrifying news. President Garfield's been shot.
Yeah. And the assassin, Charles J. Guiteau, this
deranged office seeker who felt entitled to a
job he proclaims during the shooting, I am a
stalwart and Arthur will be president. Oh my
God. Imagine hearing that. Unbelievable. It's
crucial to stress Guiteau was profoundly mentally
unstable. His connection to Arthur and the stalwarts
was tenuous at best, more a delusion. He bizarrely
thought his act would help Arthur in the country.
Later, even wrote a poem claiming Arthur knew
and expected a pardon. Utterly untrue, of course.
But the real crisis then was the succession issue,
right? No clear legal guidance. Exactly. Garfield
lingered near death for 79 agonizing days. Nobody
knew who, if anyone, could legally exercise presidential
power. And compounding it, the Senate had adjourned,
without electing a president pro tempore, the
person next in line after Arthur. So there was
this agonizing void of authority for two months.
You can imagine the president incapacitated,
unable to govern, but still legally in office.
And Arthur, the VP, couldn't step in without
looking like he was grabbing power. And there
was no clear legal way anyway. It was a genuine
constitutional crisis. The nation was leaderless,
vulnerable. September 19, Arthur learns Garfield
has died. His initial actions were remarkably
swift. decisive, showed a real focus on stability
despite his own distress. He took the first oath
of office from Judge John R. Brady in New York,
2 15 a .m. September 20th. But even before traveling
to pay respects, he did something incredibly
farsighted. He prepared and mailed a proclamation
calling for a Senate special session to ensure
the line of succession. If he died suddenly,
the Senate would have the legal authority to
convene immediately, choose a president pro tempore,
preventing another power vacuum. Once he got
safely to Washington, he destroyed that mailed
proclamation and issued a formal call. Amazing
foresight in a crisis. And you took a second
oath in DC before the Chief Justice, just to
be sure. Yeah, September 22nd, before Chief Justice
Morrison, our weight, just to ensure procedural
compliance, address any lingering questions about
a state judge giving a federal oath. These early
moves showed this profound commitment to stability,
order, setting a surprising tone for his presidency.
Seven, Arthur's presidency. The gentleman boss
transforms. So stepping into the presidency,
Arthur immediately makes his mark on the White
House itself, found it too rundown for his refined
tastes. Apparently so. He initially stayed at
Senator John P. Jones's home while the White
House underwent this extensive and pretty expensive
remodeling that Arthur ordered. He even sold
off 24 wagonloads of old White House furniture,
just cleared it out. Wow, and the redecoration
was quite something. Oh yeah, very grand. Reflected
Arthur's style, his commitment to aesthetics,
it included adding that elaborate 50 -foot glass
screen by Louis Comfort Tiffany in the entrance
hall. New wallpaper, furniture, complete overhaul,
really a reflection of Gilded Age opulence. And
since he was a widower, his younger sister, Mary
Arthur McElroy, served as White House hostess.
That's right. She hosted elegant social events.
Arthur quickly became Washington's most eligible
bachelor. Lots of gossip about his social life,
his sharp dressing. But romantically. It's widely
believed he remained singularly devoted to the
memory of his late wife, Ellen. He was also fiercely
protective of his daughter, Nell, shielding her
from the press when she joined him in DC in 1882.
Wanted to keep her out of the spotlight. Now
the cabinet. He immediately faced conflict with
Garfield's cabinet, right? Mostly half -breeds
loyal to Garfield. Yeah, big challenge. He asked
him to stay till Congress reconvened, but several
resigned pretty quickly. Treasury Secretary Wyndham
left in October. Arthur strategically replaced
him with Charles J. Folger, close friend, New
York stalwart, after Edwin D. Morgan said no.
Attorney General Wayne McVeigh, a big reformer,
resigned. Arthur replaced him with Benjamin H.
Brewster, who, ironically, had reformist leanings.
And the big one, Secretary of State James G.
Blaine, Conkling's nemesis. High stakes there.
Yeah. Conkling fully expected the job himself,
you know, as a reward. But Arthur, showing some
independence, chose Frederick T. Frelinghuysen
of New Jersey. A stalwart, but recommended by
Grant, not Conkling directly. Interesting move.
Frelinghuysen then advised Arthur against more
stalwart appointments. Advice Arthur sometimes
took appointing half -breed William E. Chandler
as Navy secretary, for example. But he still
put Timothy Ohau, a Wisconsin stalwart, as postmaster
general. Later he tried for a more balanced approach.
Henry M. Teller, Colorado stalwart, as Interior
Secretary. Only War Secretary Robert Todd Lincoln
stayed for Arthur's whole term. shows the complex
maneuvering involved as he slowly asserted his
own authority. His administration also inherited
that major corruption mess, the Starroute scandal,
perfect example of the era's problems. Oh yes,
contractors for those Starr postal routes, mail
delivery to remote areas getting greatly overpaid
with the connivance of government officials,
rampant fraud. And the fear among reformers was
that Arthur, the ultimate spoilt man, wouldn't
touch it. Exactly. Widespread fear. This is a
huge test of his supposed transformation. But
Arthur flatly defied those expectations. His
attorney general, Brewster, continued the investigations
with Arthur's full backing, hired prominent Democrats
as lawyers to strengthen the prosecution, signal
impartiality. Wow. Arthur himself forced resignations
of officials suspected in the scandal, even one
he'd worked closely with before. Stephen Wallace
Dorsey, showed an unexpected, principled commitment
to rooting out corruption, no matter who it involved.
But getting justice was tough. The first trial
in 82, not much success. No. Convictions for
only two minor guys hung jury for the rest. Worse,
allegations of jury bribery surfaced. The judge
set aside the verdicts, ordered a new trial.
But Arser didn't give up. No, his resolve held.
He removed five federal office holders sympathetic
to the defense before the second trial, really
pushed for it. But the second trial, December
82 to July 83, again did not result in a guilty
verdict for the main players. Frustrating. So
legally a failure. In terms of convictions, yes,
it tarnished the administration's image. But
Arthur did succeed in stopping the fraud. The
system was reformed, payments ended, integrity
restored. showed his willingness to pursue justice
even when it was politically hard and the legal
results weren't great. And now the big one. What
many see as the most surprising, most impactful
turn. The gentleman boss of patronage becomes
the champion of civil service reform, the core
of his transformation. The context here is just
undeniable. Garfield's assassination by that
deranged office seeker shouting he was a stalwart,
it massively amplified the public demand for
civil service reform. The public was outraged.
Absolutely. And leaders in both parties quickly
saw that embracing reform could win them support.
By 1882, a strong bipartisan effort started shaping
up. Democratic Senator George H. Pendleton of
Ohio, who'd pushed this for years, reintroduced
his bill. It proposed selecting civil servants
based on merit as determined by an examination,
not political connections. And Arthur himself
had actually called for reform legislation in
his 1881 annual address, kind of setting the
stage. He had, surprisingly. The push gained
real momentum after Republicans lost big in the
1882 congressional elections. Democrats campaigned
hard on reform, showed the shift in public mood.
Right. This made the lame duck session of Congress
more amenable. Outgoing members didn't face political
heat for supporting it. The bill passed the Senate
big, 38 -5, and the House strong, too, 155 -47.
Broad support, even if reluctant sometimes. And
then, January 16, 1883, Arthur signs the Pendleton
Civil Service Reform Act into law. This came
as a surprise to reformers who saw him as Conklin's
guy, right? Total surprise to many. But what's
truly fascinating and key to his legacy, and
he didn't just sign it, he became its staunch
implementer, actively dismantling the very patronage
system that got him there. How did he implement
it? Took swift action, appointed prominent reformers,
Dorman Bridgman Eaton, John Milton Gregory, Leroy
D. Thoman to the new Civil Service Commission,
and get this, the chief examiner for the commission,
Silas W. Burt. the guy who'd been Arthur's opponent
and replacement during the Custom House fights.
No way. Yeah. Arthur gave the system his full,
unequivocal support, defended it against critics.
And the impact? Was it real? Immediate and significant.
Initially applied to only 10 % of federal jobs,
mostly Custom Houses, post offices. But just
a year later, by 1884, half of all postal officials
and three -quarters of the custom service jobs
were to be awarded by merit through competitive
exams. Arthur himself in his 1884 address said
how satisfied he was with its effectiveness,
praised its ability in securing competent and
faithful public servants and protecting officials
from the pressure of personal opportunity. This
wasn't just political maneuvering. It was a profound
shift in American governance. And Arthur, the
former gentleman boss, was its unexpected architect.
Eight, key domestic policies and global stance.
Okay, let's look beyond civil service reform.
What about other domestic policies? That big
federal budget surplus was still a problem, right?
$145 million by 1882. Huge money back then. Yeah,
a massive amount. And it spurred this intense
debate, really divided the parties. Democrats
generally wanted lower tariffs, reduce federal
income, lower the cost of imports for people.
And Republicans like Arthur? Favored high tariffs.
believe they protected American jobs, insured
high wages and manufacturing, mining. They prefer
dealing with the surplus by spending more on
internal improvements or cutting excise taxes
on certain goods. So Arthur, sticking with his
party, proposed in 82, abolish excise taxes except
on liquor and simplify that really complex tariff
structure. Exactly. It had gotten super unwieldy
since the war. To tackle this, Representative
William D. Kelly introduced a bill for a tariff
commission. Arthur signed it, appointed mostly
protectionist to the committee as you'd expect.
But then the committee surprised everyone. Totally.
They recommended significant tariff cuts, 20
-25 % average, recognized the burden high tariffs
put on consumers. But Congress ignored them.
Power of vested interests. Pretty much. Congress
passed a bill reducing tariffs by only 1 .47%.
Arthur signed it best he could get, but it had
no effect on the surplus. Left the issue unresolved,
the debates raged on. Congress then tried another
way to spend the surplus, the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1882, unprecedented amount, $19 million
for local projects. Yeah, and while Arthur wasn't
against internal improvements generally, he was
really disturbed by the bill's sheer scale and
its narrow focus on particular localities. He
saw it as excessive pork barrel spending, more
for political favors than national benefits.
So he vetoed it, August 1st, 1882. He did. And
it was met with widespread popular acclaim. Public,
press, tired of wasteful spending. His veto message
was clear. The money wasn't for the common defense
or general welfare. Didn't promote commerce among
the states. Principled, stand against waste.
But Congress overrode the veto the next day.
They did. Reduced the surplus by 19 million dollars,
but it was a defiant move. Republicans later
thought that decision, looking like they supported
waste against a popular veto, hurt them badly
in the 1882 elections. Arthur's veto, though
overridden, really boosted his image as someone
willing to stand on principle, even against his
own party. Okay, shifting to foreign affairs.
Under Garfield, Secretary of State Blaine had
been pretty active in Latin America, right? Trade
deals, mediating disputes, proposed Pan -American
conference. Yeah, Blaine was ambitious. But when
Frederick T. Frelinghuysen took over for Arthur,
they discontinued Blaine's conference idea. Feared
it might drag the U .S. into the war of the Pacific
between Chile, Peru, and Bolivia. They still
pursued bilateral trade treaties, though, with
Mexico, Santo Domingo, Spain's American colonies.
But many failed to get enacted. Legislative hurdles,
resistance from other countries shows the difficulties
of diplomacy. What about immigration policy?
Congress passed a bill regulating steamships
carrying immigrants. Arthur initially vetoed
it over states' rights concerns, but approved
it after revisions gave feds more authority.
He also signed the Broader Immigration Act of
1882, levied a 50 -cent tax on immigrants, excluded
groups seen as potential public burdens, mentally
ill, intellectually disabled criminals, and early
move toward federal immigration control. And
now, this really defining moment. Chinese immigration.
A huge moral and political dilemma for Arthur.
The context is crucial here. The 1868 Berlin
Game Treaty allowed unrestricted flow of Chinese
immigrants, mainly for labor. But after the panic
of 1873, the economic downturn, Chinese immigrants
got blamed for lowering wages, especially out
West. Fueled this nasty xenophobia, calls for
exclusion. Hayes had vetoed an exclusion act
in 79. So in 1882, Senator John F. Miller from
California pushes a new bill, a 20 year ban on
Chinese laborers, passed overwhelmingly. Huge
pressure on Arthur. But Arthur, he made a really
principled stand. He vetoed that first bill,
argued a 20 year ban wasn't just unfair. It violated
the renegotiated 1880 treaty, which only allowed
a reasonable suspension, not a long prohibition.
Praised in the East. Condemned in the West. Exactly.
Eastern papers lauded his moral and legal stance.
Western states, where anti -Chinese feeling was
intense, were furious. So Congress passed a new
bill, reducing the ban to 10 years. Right. Arthur
still objected, still saw it as violating the
treaty as unfair. But he ultimately acceded to
this compromise. Signed the Chinese Exclusion
Act into law May 6, 1882. A tough spot. Principle
versus overwhelming political pressure. A stark
example. Forced to sign a law he found objectionable.
And it's worth remembering, part of that law
denying citizenship to U .S.-born Chinese Americans
was later found unconstitutional in the United
States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. A complex issue,
a dark chapter, where Arthur navigated intense
pressure. Another key area for Arthur where he
really left a mark. The Navy. Post -Civil War,
U .S. naval power had just collapsed, hadn't
it? From nearly 700 ships down to 52. Mostly
obsolete wooden ones. Yeah. Pretty sorry, State.
For about 15 years, the military focus was all
on the Indian wars out west, coastal defenses.
But as the frontier settled, people started worrying
about the Navy's weakness. Garfield's Navy secretary,
William H. Hunt, had started advocating reform,
but his time was cut short. Arthur picked up
that cause forcefully. But he did. Strongly advocated
for a stronger Navy. in his 1881 annual message,
gave full authority to his new Navy secretary,
William E. Chandler, to modernize things. And
Chandler was aggressive about it. Very. Swiftly
started purging the Navy of the old wooden canvas
warship supporters, established the Naval War
College in Newport, appointed an advisory board
to plan modernization. The goal, a modern Navy,
steel hulls, steam power, capable of protecting
U .S. interests thousands of miles away, not
just coasts. And the result, the ABCD ships.
Exactly. Congress funded them. Arthur signed
the law. Three state of the art steel cruisers,
Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, and an armed dispatch
steamer, Dolphin. Collectively, the squadron
of evolution, the birth of the modern U .S. Navy,
really. Interesting detail. The contracts went
to the low bidder, John Roach & Sons, even though
Chandler had apparently lobbied for them before.
Politics never far away. True. And Democratic
opposition later stalled further expansion. Constant
political battles. But despite delays, the Navy
undeniably improved under Arthur. The last of
those ADCD ships entered service in 1889. Chandler
famously said he did his best work in destroying
the old Navy. Arthur championed that radical
shift, laid the groundwork for America's rise
as a naval power, often overlooked achievement.
What about civil rights in the post -Reconstruction
South? A really complex challenge. How could
Republicans challenge Democrats and protect Black
Southerners when the party itself was shrinking
there? This led to an interesting pragmatic strategy.
This new party, the readjusters, emerged in Virginia,
won elections on a platform of more school funding
for black and white schools, ending the poll
tax, ending the whipping post. OK. Many northern
Republicans, Arthur included, saw them as a more
viable progressive ally than the traditional,
often corrupt, southern Republican Party remnants.
So Arthur directed federal patronage in Virginia
through the readjusters, supported them to achieve
some civil rights games, tried it elsewhere in
the South, but only really worked in Virginia.
How was that received? Mixed feelings? Definitely
mixed. Some black Republicans felt betrayed,
felt like he was abandoning allies. But other
prominent black leaders like Frederick Douglass,
ex -Senator Blanche K. Bruce, they endorsed the
administration's actions. Recognized these independents
often had more liberal racial policies, maybe
a better shot at real change. But the Supreme
Court threw a wrench in things with the civil
rights cases in 1883, striking down the Civil
Rights Act of 1875. Yeah, gutted federal protection
against private discrimination. Arthur expressed
his disagreement strongly in a message to Congress
called for new laws, but he was unable to persuade
Congress to pass any new legislation, shows the
limits of presidential power against the courts
and a resistant Congress. He did intervene successfully
in that West Point case, though. Cadet Johnson
Whitaker. He did overturn a court martial ruling
against Whitaker, a black cadet, after the Judge
Advocate General found the prosecution was illegal
and based on racial bias. Yeah. A significant
presidential intervention for civil rights, using
his direct executive power. Okay, moving west.
What about the challenge of polygamy in Utah
territory, the LDS church under government pressure?
Arthur aligned firmly with Garfield's view. Saw
polygamy as criminal, morally harmful. In 1882,
he signed the Edmonds Act, made polygamy a federal
crime, barred polygamists from public office,
juries, even voting. Decisive federal intervention
in a really contentious social issue. And Native
American policy. Relations were changing as the
Indian wars wound down. Yeah, public sentiment
slowly shifting toward more favorable treatment.
Arthur urged Congress to increase funding for
Native American education. It did increase in
84. though not as much as he wanted. He also
favored moving to the allotment system. Individual
Native Americans owning land, not tribes communally.
Which seemed like reform then, but... Right.
While seen as liberal reform at the time, a way
to civilize and integrate, it eventually proved
detrimental. Most allotted land ended up being
resold, often fraudulently, at low prices to
white speculators. Huge land loss, cultural disruption.
Arthur couldn't get Congress to adopt it, but
the Dawes Act of 1887 later implemented it with
those devastating results. And settler encroachment
on native lands. Arthur initially resisted it,
but after his Interior Secretary Teller assured
him certain lands were protected, Arthur opened
the Crow Creek Reservation in Dakota territory
to settlers by executive order in 1885. Believed
it was legal. But his successor, Grover Cleveland,
reversed that order quickly. Yeah, just a few
months later, Cleveland found the title rightfully
belonged to the Native Americans, a swift reversal
highlighting how contentious and often unjust
these land policies were. Nine, health decline,
1884 election and post presidency. You know,
on a more personal level, and this was largely
unknown to the public at the time, shortly after
becoming president, Arthur got this private,
very serious diagnosis, Bright's disease, severe
kidney ailment, nephritis. Essentially fatal.
Yeah, a huge burden he carried privately. He
tried hard to keep it secret, understanding the
political fallout of a sick president. But by
1883, rumors of his illness began to circulate.
People noticed he was thinner, looked older,
visibly struggled with the pace of the job. He
tried to get away, rejuvenate his health, trip
to Florida in April 83. Yeah, but it had the
opposite effect. Caused him intense pain, made
things worse. Later that year, though, on Senator
George Graham Vest's advice, he took a more successful
trip. visited Yellowstone National Park, the
first national park. And that helped, both his
health and maybe publicizing the park. Seems
so. The Yellowstone trip was more beneficial.
He returned refreshed after two months, a brief
respite. But the underlying illness, of course,
remained. So as the 1884 election approaches,
James G. Blaine is the clear Republican favorite.
Arthur considered running for a full term. He
did. He'd grown into the office, but he started
realizing neither faction of the party would
really back him. Half -breeds were for blame,
stalwarts were divided, weakened. Reformers weren't
certain enough of his reform credentials to pick
him over Senator George F. Edmonds. Some business
leaders and southern Republicans, the ones who
owed him jobs, rallied around him. Eventually,
yeah. But by then, Arthur had decided against
a serious campaign, recognized the uphill battle,
likely compounded by his failing health. He kept
up a token effort, though. Didn't want dropping
out to raise questions about his health or actions.
Right. didn't want to look weak or like he was
hiding something. But by the convention in June,
it was clear Blaine would win. Blaine led on
the first ballot, won on the fourth. Arthur got
just 207 votes. He accepted defeat with equanimity,
very dignified, and played no role in the campaign.
Stayed silent. During his term, he made two Supreme
Court appointments. Correct. First was Horace
Gray, respected jurist from Massachusetts, replaced
Justice Nathan Clifford. Easily confirmed, served
over 20 years. The second vacancy was when Justice
Ward Hunt retired in January 82. Arthur first
nominated his old boss, Roscoe Conkling. Really?
Even after they're falling out? Yeah, Arthur
doubted Conkling would accept, but felt obligated
to offer it. Conkling was confirmed, but then
declined the appointment the last time that's
ever happened. Wow. Arthur's next choice, Senator
George Edmonds, also declined. Finally, Arthur
nominated Samuel Blatchford, a judge on the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals. He accepted, approved
by the Senate within two weeks. So Arzer leaves
office in 1885, served his term, returned home
to New York City, declined to run for the Senate,
preferred going back to law, private life. Yeah,
but his health really limited him. He was often
too ill to leave his house, made few public appearances
after 85. The Brights' disease was getting worse.
And then that dramatic final act. November 16th,
1886, just two days before he died, he ordered
nearly all of his papers, both personal and official,
burned. Incredible, isn't it? Deliberately destroying
his own historical record, robbed historians
of invaluable insights, leaves so much to speculation
about his thoughts, his motives. The very next
morning, he suffered a cerebral hemorrhage. died
the following day, November 18th, 1886, only
57 years old. Yeah, relatively young. His post
presidency was the second shortest of any president
who lived past their term. Only James K. Polk's
was shorter. Little time for reflection or shaping
his legacy. Private funeral buried with his family
in Albany Rural Cemetery. Beautiful bronze angel
monument marks his grave. Outro. So we started
this deep dive with this figure, often just,
you know, put it in the footnotes, a political
operative deep in the spoils system, the gentleman
boss of patronage. But what we've really unpacked
today is this story of profound, surprising transformation,
how character can evolve under unexpected pressure.
Absolutely. We've seen this incredible journey
from machine politician, collector of the port,
master of patronage. to the president who signs
and robustly implements the Pendleton Civil Service
Reform Act, dismantling the very system that
created him. And his presidency had other principled
moments too, that initial veto of the discriminatory
Chinese Exclusion Act. His determined, though
ultimately frustrated, effort to prosecute the
Star Root scandal, his actions consistently challenged
expectations from allies and critics alike, makes
him really complex, compelling. And it's truly
striking how highly his contemporaries regarded
him, such a contrast to his modern obscurity.
Journalist Alexander McClure wrote, No man ever
entered the presidency so profoundly and widely
distrusted, and no one ever retired. More generally
respected, alike by political friend and foe.
Even Mark Twain, high praise, said it would be
hard indeed to better President Arthur's administration.
Yet, despite that contemporary respect, his modern
historical ranking is usually mediocre or average,
consistently called one of the least memorable
presidents. Zachary Carrabelle has that insightful
assessment, noting that even though he was physically
stretched and emotionally strained, mostly from
his secret illness, he strove to do what was
right for the country. That contrast, contemporary
respect versus historical obscurity, is one of
the most puzzling things about his legacy. And
while his personal legacy might fade, there are
those tangible reminders. GI Post's name for
him, Union College, gave him an honorary LLD,
that magnificent statue in Madison Square Park,
unveiled by his sister Mary. His face on a stamp
in 1938, a dollar coin in 2012, even Arthur Avenue
in the Bronx. The irony is rich, isn't it? Despite
these things, his personal legacy just often
fades from public consciousness. may be overshadowed
by the bigger, more dramatic figures of his time.
Secretary of War Elihu Root observed at his statue
dedication, Arthur was isolated in office and
unloved by his own party. He deliberately cut
ties with his patrons, yet he was wise in statesmanship
and firm and effective in administration. A president
who... against the odds, chose principle over
party, quiet competence over political flash.
A powerful lesson in unexpected leadership. Yeah.
Which really raises an important question for
you, our listener. What does Chester A. Arthur's
story teach us about the capacity for a profound
change in leadership, especially when someone's
thrust into power by unexpected, even tragic
events? Because a person truly shed past allegiances
to serve a higher moral purpose. And how often
do we as a society maybe underestimate the impact
of quiet confidence, of principled evolution
over those more flamboyant but perhaps less effective
presidencies. Indeed. Chester A. Arthur reminds
us that some of history's most profound lessons,
well, they come from its most over -lit corners.
His is a story of a president who, despite his
background, ultimately defied expectations to
leave a truly lasting mark on American governance,
something to mull over as you continue your own
deep dives into the unexpected narratives of
the past.