Smithsonian mag clueless about American political history

The August 2008 issue of Smithsonian lists what it calls four conventions that changed America, followed by individual stories on each.

They are the GOP in 1912, when Teddy and his Bull Moosers to be were turned back; the Democrats in 1948, when the Dixiecrats walked out and a young Hubert Humphrey got the convention to adopt a civil rights plank; 1964 Republican, with Goldwater; and the 1968 Democratic convention.

Now the intro I linked above did not explicitly say theses were the four most important conventions every, but I’m inferring it is halfway implying that.

That said …

How the editor who got the idea for the four conventions could overlook EITHER of the 1860 conventions, let alone BOTH, is inexcusable.

Southern Democrats' intransigence at Charleston, spitefully blocking Stephen Douglas' nomination under the two-thirds rule, guaranteed a Republican victory.

The GOP convention being sited in Chicago, combined with pumping the Wigwam full of Lincoln-boosting locals, guaranteed Honest Abe the Republican nomination, and therefore, that victory.

A 1861 government with a President Douglas likely would have had no secession. South Carolina might have given it a go alone, but soon would have been blockaded back into the Union.

An 1861 government with a President Seward might well have wound up with Southern success in secession. (And Maximilian staying on the throne of Mexico to boot.)

And, all that said, this isn’t the first time in recent issues Smithsonian has fallen flat on its historical face.

The cover story in the May issue claimed that Acoma Indians built, and moved to, their famous Sky City pueblo in part from Navajos.

Just one MINOR problem.

The pueblo was built at least 400 years before the Navajos GOT TO the U.S. Southwest.

Did the Smithsonian run my letter to the editor, though? Did the magazine even e-mail me back? Noooo.

Update, July 30:Two points to add, one an admission of error (it happens) and a contra-affirmation based on that error.

First, the mistake. Smithsonian’s cover piece for the four stories said the mag was limiting itself to the 20th century, as a magazine editorial staffer e-mailed me.

That said, I e-mailed back and asked if the mag would consider something similar for 19th-century conventions, as the idea as now stated seems to imply that politics before the 20th century was a cut below.

That then said, I can suggest 20th-century conventions at least as important as the ones they selected.

For 1912, I would have picked the Democratic convention over the GOP. Woodrow Wilson was a dark horse and only a last gasp of the Dems’ two-thirds rule denied Missouri Rep. and Speaker of the House Champ Clark the nomination.

The 1912 GOP? Part of the TR myth. As GOP standard-bearer, he would have lost to Wilson, IMO.

I would have chosen the 1932 Dem convention ahead of 1964 GOP. First, spectacle aside, some form of Sunbelt GOP conservativism and “Southern strategy” was coming down the pike anyway. Remember LBJ’s comment that he lost the South for a generation.

But, FDR was by no means a shoe-in for the Dems’ candidate in 1932. Try to picture Cactus Jack, John Nance Garner, as president.

And, what about the 1944 Democratic convention? Not to choose Roosevelt, but to choose the man just about everybody on the inside knew would be his successor in less than four years.

So, confining myself to the 20th century, and with a head-on convention confrontation in 1912, I think Smithsonian still is off.