this podcast is about one of the formative men in TR’s life, long before trips to Asia or the Presidency. it was extremely well done and is well worth your listen.

I for one hope they’ll be more TR coverage here, not less.

“As I began writing The Imperial Cruise, I realized that the Theodore Roosevelt most of us know is a character that Teddy had created and historians have accepted and passed on. As a best selling author from his early years, he had long experience in projecting imagery for public consumption. With his Ranchman and Rough Rider poses in photo studios, he created his own legend. In his diplomatic white vest. the warmonger masqueraded as a man of peace. Even his private correspondence to his children – called posterity letters – were self consciously written to enhance the historical legacy. After studying his life for twenty-seven years, the author Kathleen Dalton wrote in Theodore Roosevelt: A Strenuous Life, “[t]thrown off the trail by their hero’s careful presentation of himself, too many writers have accepted at face value his explanation of his own behavior.

“Many books on Theodore Roosevelt mention his biases but often employ obscure coded phrases and euphemisms. Probably the best-known biography of is the Pulitzer Prize-honored The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt by Edmund Morris. In his acknowledgments, Morris praises one author and one book:

‘To Carleton Putnam, a man I have never met I express gratitude and admiration for his Theodore Roosevelt: The Formative Years (Scribners, 1958), an essential source for students of Theodore Roosevelt’s youth. It is a tragedy of American biography that this grave, neglected masterpiece was never followed by other volumes.’

Carleton Putnam wrote another book, entitled Race and Reason: A Yankee View. The book’s genesis was Putnam’s letter to President Dwight Eisenhower protesting the recent integration of America’s public schools. Putnam lectured Eisenhower that the Black man was three thousand years behind the White man and that it was dangerous to allow the races to mix. Putnam told Eisenhower to heed the wisdom of a past president.

‘As Theodore Roosevelt wrote…..Teutonic and English blood is the source of American greatness: Our American Republic, with all its faults is, together with England, the fine flower of centuries of self-discipline and experience in free government by the English speaking branch of the white race.’”

I agree 100%. You put that very well.

TR was also rather ignorant and unfair towards the Native Americans in many respects; like many presidents before him, and some since. He surely had some qualities of leadership and personal resolve that I admire but I would never call him my role model.

I don’t know that TR held the most objectionable views on race of any of Presidents, but his are certainly among the worst – and its a history which is largely unremembered and unreported.

It may very well have been that TR “believed that all races could, through their hard work, attain an equal level with whites” but that very attitude, that whites were naturally superior and that other races could learn and strive to be as good helps make Bradley’s point, in my opinion. Take that attitude and transplant it to foreign policy and its not surprise that TR looked so favorably on Japan, leaving the Japanese with the notion that they had a “Japanese Monroe Doctrine” that legitimized their imperial expansion in Asia. Bradley believed this attitude led indirectly to the war on the Pacific.

I acknowledge that Bradley’s book had a strong impact on me because it is a history that I was never taught and I went to some pretty good high schools and universities. Further much of what he recounts is dramatically sad. The Secretary of War William Howard Taft, the leader of the 1905 cruise, touring the allegedly pacified Philippines kept encountering brave civilian Filipinos who petitioned him for their country’s independence to which Taft essentially replied maybe, but not for at least 150 years when Filipinos could govern themselves. Imagine being on the receiving end of a comment like that, from an occupying power no less.

So I am really conflicted on TR. I find the general impression of him among Americans to be significantly sanitized and I find it difficult to reconcile how the US behaved in, for example, The Philippines with a president whose image we want or deserves to be on Mount Rushmore.

David, it does not make sense to on one hand say that TR was one of the most racist and prejudiced presidents we ever had and then to quote Bradley as saying his views were the same as everyone else. And it can hardly be said that TR was more racist than the presidents that owned slaves, and I would argue that Woodrow Wilson, a man who went gaga over the Birth of a Nation, and re-segregated the civil service was far more virulent in his racial views and is truly deserving of the “most racist” title. In some ways TR was more progressive than others of the time-inviting BTW to the White House and the defending the appointment of Minnie Cox. This is a good rundown of actions towards African-Americans, both bad and good:

http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/civil%20rights.htm#AfricanAmer

And of course, his views on Asians is a different arena. But he believed that all races could, through their hard work, attain an equal level with whites.

As far as being insecure about his manhood-as the podcast points out, this was typical of the men of the age. But he was no phony and his exploits out West as a cowboy were far from manufactured. It’s true that when he arrived in the Badlands he was cultured Easterner who had no idea what he was doing and was made fun of by other cowboys. But he dived right in-spending 12 hours a day in the saddle, working through sub zero temperatures, shoveling manure and tracking down horse thieves, and by the end he earned the locals respect. Anyone who has read extensively about his life cannot possibly come away with the idea that his manliness was manufactured-one cannot fake their way to that list of accomplishments.

It is true that I didn’t buy The Imperial Cruise based on reviews. Because money and shelf space are both tight these days, I got my copy from the library and I would urge anyone here to do the same and make up their own minds.

Far from being a few “cherry picked” quotes, Bradley provides pictures, cartoons, the lyrics to songs, the texts of letters and other sources of information, all of which he footnotes so the reader can go look them up for him or herself if they like to substantiate his writing. When asked in an interview with George Mason University’s History News Network about his recounting of TR’s racial views, Bradley replied in part:

“From our point of view it’s as if these are distant theories, and maybe you could hold them. In our parlance we would say a person is choosing to be a racist or not. The word racist didn’t come into use until the 1930s. Theodore Roosevelt was not a racist, he subscribed to the racial theory that the editor of the New York Times did, that his entire cabinet did, that almost every educated person in the United States did. These were not some weird ideas off to the side. This was how the world worked. This is why Theodore Roosevelt explained the Philippines and Asia to America in terms of these racial theories. He was a politician trying to talk in the vernacular of the people.” (http://hnn.us/articles/121083.html).

Ben, it is true that TR won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to resolve the Russo-Japanese war in 1906, but Bradley writes that it was highly doubtful that the Nobel Prize committee knew how thoroughly Roosevelt took the Japanese side while being an “honest broker” or that he had privately communicated to the Japanese that the Americans would have no trouble with Japan taking over another sovereign nation (Korea). Maybe if the Pulitzer Prize Committee ever gets around to putting an asterisk beside Walter Duranty’s 1932 Pulitzer for his cover up reporting of the Ukrainian Famine, the Nobel Committee might put an asterisk beside TR’s name for his Nobel Peace Prize.

As I noted previously, I am open to the notion that there is more to TR than rank bigotry. But I don’t think noting that he was a product of his times absolves us of responsibility for having a full picture of him, the parts we might like and those we might not.

Actually, I got The Imperial Cruise out of the library in these recessionary days and far from being a few “cherry picked” quotes, Bradley provides references to complete works and letters. Also, the information cited is not limited to just letters or just speeches or just other books. Bradley includes pictures, cartoons, lyrics from songs from the military and popular cultures of the time (a military song about water boarding, for example), all that amply support his points about how TR and broader American society saw Asia, Asians, Asian nations and the U.S. agenda in that part of the world.

When asked in an interview about his recounting of TR’s racial views The Imperial Cruise, (hnn.us/articles/121083.html) Bradley replied in part:

“From our point of view it’s as if these are distant theories, and maybe you could hold them. In our parlance we would say a person is choosing to be a racist or not. The word racist didn’t come into use until the 1930s. Theodore Roosevelt was not a racist, he subscribed to the racial theory that the editor of the New York Times did, that his entire cabinet did, that almost every educated person in the United States did. These were not some weird ideas off to the side. This was how the world worked. This is why Theodore Roosevelt explained the Philippines and Asia to America in terms of these racial theories. He was a politician trying to talk in the vernacular of the people.”

Bradley also documents TR’s efforts to hide the deals he was making overseas knowing full well that do do them openly would have brought him political objections and he thought both he and his policy were above objections.

Ben, it is certainly true that TR won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to negotiate an end to the Russo-Japanese war in 2006, but Bradley pointed out that is is highly doubtful that the prize committee knew that he was secretly fully on board with the Japanese side in those negations or that he was was privately letting Japanese leaders know that the Americans fully supported Japan’s take over of another nation (Korea). If the Pulitzer Prize committee ever gets around to revoking Walter Duranty”s prize for his cover up reporting of the Ukrainian Famine in the 1930′s the Nobel Peace Prize Committee will put an asterisk next to TR Nobel Prize.

As I noted before, I am open to the notion that there was more to TR than just rank bigotry, but I believe the truth about the man’s attitudes and what those attitudes led this country to do need to be known, particularly if people are considering TR as someone to uniformly admire.

I also admire his progressive values when it came to social welfare programs and trust busting. He wielded the executive office with a lot of power and usually for good cause, especially when it came to the environment.

Plus he has the most badass stories. A man tried to kill him while campaigning. He was shot in the chest, but the bullet went through his thickly folded written speech and glasses case. He knew that if he wasn’t coughing blood he was okay. TR then plugged the wound with his handkerchief and then delivered a short speech before going to the hospital.

He knew how to deal with adversity and trying times. Having your wife and mother die on the same day in the same house would be quite a trying time in a life.

Plus how many presidents do you know of that have both a Nobel Peace Prize and Medal of Honor?

I think Teddy’s politics were mostly good and his presidency, in my view, represented the pinnacle of the GOP in the modern era and his creation of the Bull Moose party is what pushed the GOP into conservatism.

And despite his politics I think the fact of the matter is that Teddy is a larger than life character and represents one of the most interesting chapters in American History.

The Imperial Cruise is a bunch of heavily biased twaddle, driven by the author’s opinions, and tenuously supported with cherry-picked quotes and anecdotes. The sources used are flimsy and the research is shoddy; the book is not taken seriously by real historians. To those thinking of picking up the book, I would recommend reading the one star reviews (of which there is more of than any other of the star categories) on Amazon.

I hope David takes the time to read 5 or 6 more biographies of TR and several books about the time period before continuing to spread his ill-informed opinions around.