logo
Presidential historian William Leuchtenburg dies at 102

Presidential historian William Leuchtenburg dies at 102

Politico30-01-2025

NEW YORK — William E. Leuchtenburg, a prize-winning historian widely admired for his authoritative writings on the U.S. presidency and as the reigning scholar on Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, has died at 102.
Leuchtenburg died Tuesday at his home in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, according to his son, Joshua A. Leuchtenburg, who cited no specific cause of death.
A professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina and a published author for more than 70 years, William E. Leuchtenburg was praised for his encyclopedic knowledge and rigorous, but accessible style. He received some of the top awards given to historians, including the Parkman and Bancroft prizes, was a political analyst for CBS and NBC and consulted on several of Ken Burns' PBS documentaries. In 2008, he was given the Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. Award for 'Distinguished Writing' of American history.
Leuchtenburg's notable books include 'Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal' and 'The Perils of Prosperity,' a history of the U.S. from World War I to the peak of the Great Depression. Although politically liberal, his expertise called upon by aides to Lyndon Johnson and other Democratic politicians, he was as willing to point out the New Deal's disappointments as its successes: His scholarship was closely studied by younger FDR historians, from Jonathan Alter to Burns collaborator Geoffrey Ward, who dedicated the 2014 book 'The Roosevelts' to Leuchtenburg.
And he was otherwise known for his generosity with Ward and others who sought his expertise.
His most influential work was likely the Bancroft-winning 'Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal,' published in 1963. Leuchtenburg found that the impact of FDR's vast and unprecedented response to the Depression was limited by political calculation, especially the president's reluctance to challenge racial segregation in the South, and that 'It never demonstrated that it could achieve prosperity' until the U.S. entered World War II. But he also credited the New Deal with transforming the role of federal government and Roosevelt with reinventing the presidency, using the young medium of radio to convince millions that he knew them personally.
'Nothing is glossed over at all,' the New York Times' Charles Poore wrote upon the book's release. 'You live here through years of tumult and disaster, triumph and ineptitude and daring.'
Leuchtenburg's books on Roosevelt covered his presidency and beyond. 'In the Shadow of FDR,' published in 1983 and periodically updated, demonstrated how presidents from Truman to George W. Bush attempted to shun and/or embrace Roosevelt's legacy. Leuchtenburg wrote of Roosevelt's immediate successor, Harry Truman, gesturing in the White House to a portrait of FDR and admitting, 'I'm trying to do what he would like.' He noted the frustration of Republican Dwight Eisenhower and Democrat John F. Kennedy in being compared, unfavorably, to Roosevelt, and how Jimmy Carter began his 1976 presidential run with a speech in Warm Springs, Georgia, where FDR often stayed.
At the time of his death, Leuchtenburg was working on an edition that would have included the administration of Joe Biden, who kept a portrait of Roosevelt in the Oval Office.
The 2005 book 'The White House Looks South' featured sections on Roosevelt, Truman and Lyndon Johnson and told of how each embraced or distanced themselves from the South. Roosevelt, a native of New York, spent so much time in Warm Springs that the state's governor referred to him as our 'fellow-Georgian.' Johnson, a Texan, alternately identified himself as a Southerner or a Westerner, depending on the intended audience.
In the prologue, Leuchtenburg fondly noted his own journey, remembering visits to baseball spring training camps in Florida, marching with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in Montgomery, Alabama, and never failing on New Year's Day to partake of black-eyed peas and collard greens, 'even if they are eaten with a grimace.'
'In sum, I am in, but not of, the South,' he concluded.
He was a popular and rigorous educator — sometimes referred to as 'The Big L' — who taught at Smith College, Harvard University and Columbia University before settling at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the early 1980s. A former president of the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians, he held such stature that he contributed to later editions of 'The Growth of the American Republic,' a standard college textbook originally written by Henry Steele Commager and Samuel Eliot Morison. Historians studying under him ranged from Allan Brandt to Howard Zinn.
Leuchtenburg was married twice, most recently to Jean Anne Leuchtenburg, and had three children.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Australia's defense minister downplays concerns over Pentagon review of multi-billion submarine deal
Australia's defense minister downplays concerns over Pentagon review of multi-billion submarine deal

Hamilton Spectator

time23 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Australia's defense minister downplays concerns over Pentagon review of multi-billion submarine deal

BANGKOK (AP) — Australia's defense minister dismissed concerns Thursday that a deal between the U.S., Australia and Britain to provide his country with nuclear-powered submarines could be in jeopardy, following a report that the Pentagon had ordered a review. Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles told Sky News Australia that he had known about the review of the deal 'for some time,' saying that it was a 'very natural step for the incoming administration to take.' He noted that the UK's government also reviewed the deal, the centerpiece of a three-way alliance known as AUKUS after it was elected, and that his own government had looked at it as part of its own review of Australia's entire defense posture. 'I think an incoming government having a look at this is something that they have a perfect right to do and we welcome it and we'll work with it,' he said. The deal, worth more than $200 billion, was signed between the three countries in 2021 under then President Joe Biden, designed to provide Australia, one of Washington's staunchest allies in the region, with greater maritime capabilities to counter China's increasingly strong navy . The deal also involves the U.S. selling several of its Virginia-class submarines to Australia to bridge the gap as the new submarines are being jointly built. In January, Australia made the first of six $500 million payments to the U.S. under the AUKUS deal, meant to bolster American submarine manufacturing. Marles met with U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on the sidelines of a defense conference in Singapore less than two weeks ago, and told reporters afterward that he had come away with 'a sense of confidence about the way in which AUKUS is proceeding.' 'AUKUS is on track and we are meeting all the timelines that are associated with it,' he said. 'We are very optimistic.' Hegseth's address to the defense forum made multiple mentions of cooperation with Australia but no reference to AUKUS, however, though he did later mention the deal when he was taking questions. Hegseth did urge allies in the Indo-Pacific to increase their defense spending, and underscored the need for a 'strong, resolute and capable network of allies and partners' as the U.S. seeks to counter China. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

IU's governance crisis reflects dangerous trend undermining democracy
IU's governance crisis reflects dangerous trend undermining democracy

Indianapolis Star

time25 minutes ago

  • Indianapolis Star

IU's governance crisis reflects dangerous trend undermining democracy

Recent commentary in IndyStar defended Indiana University's leadership and questioned the focus and intensity of faculty criticism. But what's happening at IU isn't just a campus controversy — it's part of a national trend. Across the country, public institutions are quietly dismantling the democratic processes that once guided their decisions. IU has become a flashpoint not because of any one leader or protest, but because it shows how shared governance and expert input are being replaced by top-down control. For over a century, American universities have followed a model known as shared governance. That means faculty, administrators and trustees work together to shape a school's mission and values. It's not just tradition — it's a safeguard. It ensures that decisions about teaching, research and student life are made by the people who do the work. In recent years, IU's shared governance has been steadily eroded through a series of top-down decisions. The April 2024 no-confidence vote in President Pamela Whitten by IU Bloomington faculty — 827 to 29 — wasn't about politics or personalities. It was a response to a pattern: refusing to recognize graduate workers' union efforts; sending state police to arrest peaceful protestors in Dunn Meadow; and canceling a long-planned exhibition by Palestinian-American artist Samia Halaby without consulting curators or faculty committees. These decisions bypassed longstanding university processes like faculty review, shared governance consultation and curatorial oversight — processes that have historically guided how academic and cultural decisions are made. Now, that erosion has been written into law. Indiana's House Enrolled Act 1001, passed in 2024, officially reduced faculty governance to an 'advisory only' role. Some argue that faculty governance was always advisory in practice — but this law removes any doubt. It replaces collaboration with control. Opinion: I was running for IU Board of Trustees — until Mike Braun took it over What is happening at IU is a symptom of a pattern playing out more broadly. We're seeing the slow dismantling of democratic decision-making in public institutions. At the federal level, the National Institutes of Health was recently blocked from posting notices in the Federal Register, which froze the review of over 16,000 new research grant applications — worth about $1.5 billion. Around the same time, the agency abruptly canceled more than 1,400 already awarded grants, halting active research projects without the usual expert review or explanation. Both the review of new applications and the continuation of awarded grants typically rely on deliberative panels of scientists to ensure decisions are fair, transparent and based on merit. In both of these cases, those processes were bypassed. Though some meetings have resumed, the damage is clear: Critical systems can be disrupted with little warning and no input from the people who are supposed to guide them. Other federal agencies have followed suit. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have recently bypassed their own expert advisory committees in making major public health decisions. The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was not convened to review or vote on the 2024–2025 influenza vaccine strain selection, breaking with decades of precedent. Around the same time, both ACIP and VRBPAC were sidelined in the rollout of new COVID-19 vaccine guidance and, just this week, the entire 17-member ACIP committee was fired. A top CDC vaccine adviser resigned, citing concerns that the agency was ignoring its own deliberative processes. Whether in universities or federal agencies, the pattern is the same: Leaders are cutting out the people who should have a voice. That might seem faster or easier — but it comes at a profound and ultimately self-defeating cost. When decisions are made without input from those most affected, institutions don't just lose trust — they undermine their own legitimacy and effectiveness. And in a democracy, trust is everything. Opinion: IU deserves a serious president. Pamela Whitten must go. This isn't a partisan issue. No matter your politics, the loss of open, thoughtful decision-making should be alarming. Processes like faculty governance, peer review and public advisory boards aren't meant to slow things down or push a political agenda. They exist because they lead to better decisions. When they're ignored, we don't just lose transparency. We lose trust. Indiana's public universities — and all public institutions — can only succeed when decisions are made with the people who do the work, not imposed on them from above. When we exclude the experts, educators, scientists, and advisors who sustain these institutions, we don't just weaken the process. We weaken the outcomes.

Australia's defense minister downplays concerns over Pentagon review of multi-billion submarine deal
Australia's defense minister downplays concerns over Pentagon review of multi-billion submarine deal

San Francisco Chronicle​

time35 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Australia's defense minister downplays concerns over Pentagon review of multi-billion submarine deal

BANGKOK (AP) — Australia's defense minister dismissed concerns Thursday that a deal between the U.S., Australia and Britain to provide his country with nuclear-powered submarines could be in jeopardy, following a report that the Pentagon had ordered a review. Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles told Sky News Australia that he had known about the review of the deal 'for some time," saying that it was a 'very natural step for the incoming administration to take.' He noted that the UK's government also reviewed the deal, the centerpiece of a three-way alliance known as AUKUS after it was elected, and that his own government had looked at it as part of its own review of Australia's entire defense posture. "I think an incoming government having a look at this is something that they have a perfect right to do and we welcome it and we'll work with it,' he said. The deal, worth more than $200 billion, was signed between the three countries in 2021 under then President Joe Biden, designed to provide Australia, one of Washington's staunchest allies in the region, with greater maritime capabilities to counter China's increasingly strong navy. The deal also involves the U.S. selling several of its Virginia-class submarines to Australia to bridge the gap as the new submarines are being jointly built. In January, Australia made the first of six $500 million payments to the U.S. under the AUKUS deal, meant to bolster American submarine manufacturing. Marles met with U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on the sidelines of a defense conference in Singapore less than two weeks ago, and told reporters afterward that he had come away with 'a sense of confidence about the way in which AUKUS is proceeding.' 'AUKUS is on track and we are meeting all the timelines that are associated with it,' he said. 'We are very optimistic.' Hegseth's address to the defense forum made multiple mentions of cooperation with Australia but no reference to AUKUS, however, though he did later mention the deal when he was taking questions. Hegseth did urge allies in the Indo-Pacific to increase their defense spending, and underscored the need for a 'strong, resolute and capable network of allies and partners' as the U.S. seeks to counter China.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store