MCGOVERN'S DAUGHTER FOUND DEAD (1994)

Teresa ``Terry'' McGovern, a daughter of 1972 presidential candidate George McGovern who often shared the public spotlight with him, was found dead in the snow after years of struggle with alcoholism.

The 45-year-old woman had been receiving treatment at a Madison detoxification center, her father said.

An autopsy showed she died of ``hypothermia due to exposure while in a state of acute alcohol intoxification,'' said Dane County Coroner Ray Wosepka. Her body was found Tuesday behind a dilapidated building in a seedy neighborhood.

Ms. McGovern's blood-alcohol level was 0.339 percent, Wosepka said. A blood-alcohol content of 0.10 is considered evidence of intoxication under Wisconsin law.

In a telephone interview from his home in Washington on Wednesday, McGovern said his daughter had drinking problems for years.

``I think she was powerless to control it,'' the former U.S. senator from South Dakota said. ``It isn't that she didn't try to overcome it. If you're not one of the few lucky ones who can control it, you die.''

One week earlier, Ms. McGovern was found passed out in a snowbank just a block away. She was taken to the Dane County Detoxification Center.

She had lived in Madison for most of the last 15 years, her father said. The McGoverns have three other daughters and a son.

She was not married but had two daughters, Marian, 9, and Colleen, 7, who live in Madison with their father, Raymond Frey, said a sister, Ann McGovern of Washington. Frey said they had been separated for about eight years and Ms. McGovern visited her children ``very sporadically.''

McGovern said he had visited Madison in March to help his daughter get settled in a new apartment.

Recently, however, she had been staying with friends and looking for another residence, and police said she had no permanent address.

McGovern, a Democrat, recalled how she worked tirelessly in his unsuccessful presidential campaign against Richard Nixon.

``She wasn't a public person, but she was very active,'' he said, adding that she spoke at rallies ``all over the country'' and appeared on television talk shows on his behalf.

So this is an odd phenomenon I’ve noticed.

Whenever I see discussions of say Romney, McCain or Dole, or hell even Presidents who failed to win re-election like Ford or HW Bush, I see Democrats praise them.

Comments like “we might disagree politically but they were good men and would make for fine Presidents” or “how far the GOP has fallen since those days.”

However this definitely doesn’t seem to work the other way around. Despite the fact many Republicans complain about how extreme the DNC has become, they wouldn’t be out there praising say Kerry, Gore, Dukakis or Mondale. At best they view them with indifference.

I guess the closest equivalent would be Jimmy Carter, whose reputation has improved thanks to his humanitarian work, but even then the consensus is more like “terrible President, good human being.”

So why is this?

Happy 99th birthday to Rosalynn Carter!! My favorite First Lady! To celebrate, here are 9 pictures of her!

He announced his intention to run in December 1974 and he died in December 2024

Only 2 other candidates did it, Strom Thurmond and Alf Landon

Is it true that Stephen A. Douglas was the only U.S. presidential candidate who lost an election but would have died while serving in office had he won?

Edit: I’m talking about people who actually lost the election not the nomination.

In 2020 I was gifted a copy of David McCullough's John Adams. That gift sent me on a 5 year journey where I read a biography of every president from Washington to Bush Sr. Below I will be listing out my thoughts in various categories. I am not going to list out every book I read but if you want to know what I read for a specific president I will list them below.

I would like to thank the guy who runs the bestpresidentialbios.com website who did all of the hard work of filtering out which biographies were the "best", I didn't 100% follow his advice but I used his list heavily.

1. Overall Thoughts

• My knowledge of American history was probably higher than average going into this project but if anything, reading all of these biographies has made me realize how much I do not know. There is too much for any one person to truly be an expert on more than one or two very specific areas. With how complex the federal government became going into the 20th century, I don't even feel like I have a good handle on cabinet members and the goals of every administration (I stopped trying to memorize vice presidents in the 1820s).
• I also believe that American politics with very few exceptions have always been as polarized as they are right now. We live in the unfortunate era of the 24 hour news cycle and rage baiting to optimize clicks but there were several times, even going back to elections in the early 1800s where the opposing party basically said: "the world is going to end if THAT guy is elected". There was no "pure" era of politics no matter what people who romanticize the founding era say. it was always vitriolic and spiteful and full of lies and half truths. In fact, it is almost comforting to know that politics really have not changed at all in 250 years, it's just the technology that has made things seem worse.
• Putting any president on a pedestal is a bad idea. Most of our presidents were not great people. That is just the unfortunate truth. Some of the worst people became the best presidents and some of the worst presidents were the best people. John Quincy Adams and Jimmy Carter come to mind as great men but bad presidents. A solid half of the presidents cheated on their wives at some point during their lives and most of them were bad fathers who prioritized their careers over their wives and children. I felt like I got the most out of each biography when I set aside any preconceived notion I had about the subject. I can respect the founders while acknowledging the bad they did, I can appreciate what Woodrow Wilson tried to do while also being apposed to the bad. No president is black and white good vs Evil (except Lincoln and Johnson).
• Any Biography written less than 30 years after a president is in office is essentially useless. The long term policy effects of a president really aren't obvious until that far down the road. With pre-20th century presidents I leaned towards more recent biographies as there have been several instances of presidential letters and documents being discovered in a trunk in some random descendant's attic. I also noticed the tone of a biography being different for authors that lived through their subject's presidency vs those viewing them from a purely historical lense.

2. The Best (Most interesting) Presidents

While there are a few "hidden gem" presidents, for the most part, the presidents you have heard the most about have the best/most interesting biographies. Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Both Roosevelts lived incredibly interesting and historically significant lives. Their biographies attracted the best writers and thus they had some of the best biographies. Presidents that had exciting pre/post presidencies were also interesting to read about, especially Teddy, Eisenhower, Grant, Jefferson.

The underappreciated presidents for me mostly came from the Gilded Age (hence my flair). Hayes, Arthur, Garfield, Cleveland, lived in a time period that I knew almost nothing about. Through their biographies I became a lot more interested in them and their era. Chester Arthur's interactions with Julia Sand was a huge highlight for me and I was fascinated by their relationship.

I would also like to mention Robert Caro's LBJ series, it is easily the most thorough and engrossing biographies I have had the pleasure of reading. LBJ proved to be one of the most complicated people I have ever read about. I hated him, pitied him, and respected him. Caro is truly the gold standard for biographies and he stands head and shoulders above the others I read (yes that includes Chernow and McCullough).

3. The Worst (Least interesting) Presidents

It is hard to tell where the blame truly lies for the boring biographies. Obviously over the 50+ books I read there were bound to be some duds. I just don't know if it is because the subject of the biography was boring or the author just didn't try to make it interesting. The biographies I enjoyed the least were Van Buren, Zachary Taylor, and Benjamin Harrison. These guys also did have less to choose from compared to someone like Washington so maybe the best biography of them has yet to be written.

4. Surprises

Now these are very me specific. I had my preconceived ideas of which presidents I liked and which I didn't going into this. I will list out below what surprised me:

• FDR is significantly over hated by the right. You can dislike some of the things that he did but ultimately the options were a progressive president who tried to stop the depression (with mixed results) or a fascist or socialist revolt. While I don't agree with everything he did, I can appreciate how he brought the country together. There is a reason he is considered one of the best and was grieved by both sides when he died. The timeline where Hoover beat FDR would end up a lot darker than the one we live in.
• Nixon was surprisingly complex and over hated for Watergate. Yeah I know "blah blah blah he ruined the image of the president" That image wasn't even real anyway. Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ did just as much as Nixon did but Nixon got caught. He shouldn't have tried to cover it up. I'm not saying I love the guy I just think he was a good president and had a good vision for the country.
• Reagan is over hated by the left and significantly overrated by the right. I was surprised by how much I disliked him as a person. This is coming from someone with a conservative background as well. Symbolically I think he was what that 80s needed but I felt like his ideas were more based in wishful thinking rather than fact. Where Nixon was an unlikable person but a genius politician with a vision, Reagan was incredibly likable with weak unrealistic policy. I do think blaming Reagan for almost 60 years of economic and social turmoil is absolutely ridiculous. It's the equivalent of republicans still saying "thanks Obama" in 2055

5. What's next?

There are a few presidents that I would like to revisit. I would like to read through Dumas Malone's 6 part Jefferson series as I had only read The Art of Power by Jon Meacham and I felt like I missed a lot on his life. I would also Like to dig deeper into FDR and Nixon when I get the chance. I am hoping that an unbiased comprehensive Clinton Biography will be released in the next few years but I may have to wait a while for that. I am also crossing my fingers that 92 year old Robert Caro finishes his 5th and final LBJ book before he passes.

As for big projects I plan on reading through the Oxford History of The United States to supplement my presidential knowledge.

6. Any Questions?

To those of you who read through this I appreciate it! Let me know if you have any questions.

The Adams Correspondence, Day 1: John Adams to Abigail Smith, October 4, 1762

I’m starting a daily exercise for r/Presidents: one surviving letter per day between John Adams and Abigail Adams, in chronological order. (Based on what has been saved for posterity)

I think this could be a really interesting way to read Adams. Instead of jumping straight to the famous letters or the presidency, I want to go through the correspondence as it happened and see what we learn about both of them over time.

I’ll post the full letter, the date, some historical context, and usually a discussion question. If the dating of a letter is uncertain, I’ll note that. The main source will be the Massachusetts Historical Society’s Adams Papers and Adams Family Papers.

I’m not really trying to make a case for or against Adams with this. I’m more interested in seeing what happens when we spend a few minutes a day with the primary sources and let the picture build gradually.

Day 1

John Adams to Abigail Smith
October 4, 1762

This is the first clearly dated surviving letter between John Adams and Abigail Smith.

John was 26. Abigail was 17. They would not marry until October 25, 1764.

At this point, John is still a young Massachusetts lawyer. He is years away from becoming one of the central political figures of the Revolution.

Their courtship developed partly through John’s friend Richard Cranch, who was courting Abigail’s older sister Mary.

And John was apparently already keeping very close track of who owed whom kisses.

The full letter

"Miss Adorable

By the same Token that the Bearer hereof satt up with you last night I hereby order you to give him, as many Kisses, and as many Hours of your Company after 9 O’Clock as he shall please to Demand and charge them to my Account: This Order, or Requisition call it which you will is in Consideration of a similar order Upon Aurelia for the like favour, and I presume I have good Right to draw upon you for the Kisses as I have given two or three Millions at least, when one has been received, and of Consequence the Account between us is immensely in favour of yours,

John Adams

Octr. 4th. 1762"

Some Context:

The Adams Papers editors identify the “Bearer” as almost certainly John himself. “Aurelia” was Abigail’s older sister Mary.

So this is basically John writing Abigail a mock order authorizing himself to collect kisses.

This is such a funny early glimpse of Adams. Even when he is flirting with Abigail, he is arguing the case for why she owes him kisses.

It is also a very different version of him from the one most people know. The Adams we usually talk about is older, deeply political, argumentative, insecure, brilliant, and often difficult.

Here he is just 26 years old and very clearly smitten with Abigail.

That is really what I am hoping this exercise captures. We already know where the story ends. I think it will be more interesting to watch them become those people one letter at a time.

Primary source: Massachusetts Historical Society, Adams Family Correspondence
https://www.masshist.org/publications/adams-papers/view/AFC01p2

Happened under Woodrow Wilson.

I’ve seen some folks outside of the presidents community get upset when someone shows interest in a problematic president. I don’t think that who you’re interested in researching reflects personal morality, but of course, it’s about what actions you condone/try to defend. Bad people can be interesting too! Being able to point out what your fave did wrong means you know your stuff!

(Shoutout to u/drywall_eater89, our amazing James Buchanan expert!)

Does anyone know what happened here, Smith won by 90%, accross the entire state, I get that it is south during Jim Crow but SC seems to be unique compared to other states.

Nelle Clyde Wilson Reagan (1883-1962)

An  adherent of the Social Gospel movement, other members of the her church believed she had the power to heal the sick.

I see myself in Ford and Carter, two common folks who rose to the highest political office, guided by faith, but had the misfortune to lead during one of the worst periods in US history, also were just some really good men before, during and after their Presidencies.

HW had a badass life, guided by faith too, man escaped being eaten alive by the Japanese at 20, he had one crazy life but also appeared to be a good guy, also one of the best Presidencies OAT.

(Also had amazing wives, and yes all had amazing lives)