A new biography from Bay Area journalist Roland De Wolk says Leland Stanford was a ruthless capitalist who cheated taxpayers — and became the godfather of modern tech.

How much do you really know about the founder to one of the nation's most sought-after universities? Was he truly the godfather of Silicon Valley or just a cutthroat capitalist with an interest in new technology? (Better yet ... could he be both?)

De Wolk brings that polarity into focus in "American Disruptor: The Scandalous Life of Leland Stanford."

Stanford's legacy is far more complex than one-note historical takes and juggernaut PR machines would have you believe: He was an uneducated anti-intellectual, yet defined himself as "a technologist" and wanted Stanford University to thrive as a trade school. He played a major role in vaulting America into peak ascendancy, yet had few qualms bilking taxpayers out of millions of dollars in the process (before going on to be a U.S. Senator). And those are just a few of the threads that De Wolk pulls to weave an engaging and highly relevant portrait of a profoundly influential, turbulent and "scandalous" life.

Earlier this month, De Wolk spoke to the Weekly's sister publication, The Six Fifty, about his new biography for further insight into some of the many facets of Leland's legacy, and the nuance for connecting him to modern Silicon Valley.

Tell me about your initial spark of interest that motivated you to write a new biography of Leland Stanford?

I'm a history grad of UC Berkeley, and my interests have been pretty wide ranging. I have spent my entire adult life being a reporter, oftentimes down in Silicon Valley. I was at Stanford about five years ago working on a story ... and I was thinking about Leland Stanford, who I realized that I knew very, very little about for some reason. I understood that he was the principal player in the university and had something to do with railroads, but I thought, "I don't know anything about this guy." And I started poking around and found that there is very little written about him. So that was sort of the first spark because even though I was engaged in another project at the time, I was thinking, "maybe there's a book in there."

But what would be the hook? What would be the way to get people interested? Because the rub on Leland Stanford is that he was boring, stupid, inconsequential and that didn't ring right to me — my news nose told me that there was something very wrong about that perception.

I think I very much had that particular viewpoint. But now, in getting through your book, I would say that his life was really quite the roller coaster and that it reads like a multiple-act Shakespearean tragedy.

Yes, I couldn't agree with you more. And as I was researching it was almost revelatory, I thought: "What a life!" And a life of some significance, not just to California and the West, but to the United States and arguably the world.

It made me wonder why he didn't get this kind of attention before. You have the Vanderbilts, Carnegie, the Rockefellers ... and I think I could argue pretty convincingly that they were not as consequential and perhaps even of less significance than Leland Stanford.

Without a Leland Stanford there would have been no Carnegie, because that steel fortune was based on the railroads. There would be no Rockefeller because he wouldn't have been able to move his oil around. Stanford employed thousands and thousands of more people. The effect of the Transcontinental Railroad can't even possibly be gauged compared to a guy who had an oil company, or a guy who made some steel.

Can you touch on a place where you believe your book breaks new ground on his life and legacy?

Absolutely, and if I had to choose one it would be when the federal government finally got fed up with Stanford's increasing announcements saying that not only did he think he shouldn't have to repay the American taxpayers for what would be the billions of dollars of loans he signed for and had agreed to pay back, but that the taxpayers owed him more money. To me, there's no question that this was one of the greatest scandals in American history.

This is a very contemporary issue today: We keep making these same stupid mistakes over and over again as Americans because we don't seem to appreciate history the way that other countries do.

You make the case for Stanford as a godfather of Information Age innovation ... yet you've also received some criticism for drawing too straight of a line from Stanford to modern Silicon Valley, and I would like to get your response on that?

Stanford is very much the unwitting godfather of Silicon Valley. Obviously, I'm not saying that Stanford is Robert Noyce or Frederick Terman. What I'm saying very clearly is that without Leland Stanford our history in America would be significantly different as far as tech is concerned. There are multiple reasons that Silicon Valley is located where it is, but one of the major reasons is Stanford University. And if there is no Leland Stanford, there is no Stanford University.

Where do you think American history should land when it comes to Leland Stanford and his legacy?

I think he ought to be paramount with those other celebrity names (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt) that the East Coast folks think are so important. These guys pale in comparison to Leland Stanford, so at the very, very least, he deserves that same sort of scrutiny and respect. I could argue that he can be first among them, but he at least needs to be on the same bookshelf. He needs to have the same kind of attention. The consequences of his life should not be lost.

I hope this book will start not only the recognition of Leland Stanford, but the understanding that the weight of history was tilted to the West and we need to recognize its importance and what it means for our future.

Read the full story here.

Editor's note: This interview was edited for length and clarity.

TheSixFifty.com is a sister publication of Palo Alto Online, covering what to eat, see and do in Silicon Valley.