Customer Reviews

The War Lovers: Roosevelt, Lodge, Hearst, and the Rush to Empire, 1898

5 star:		(31)
4 star:		(19)
3 star:		(14)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I have to admit this was a hard book to review. On one hand you have a historical book that is written in a manner to be not only informative but actually enjoyed. The book has a wonderful fiction-like flow that grabs your attention right from the beginning and keeps you turning the pages. The author has obviously spent his time being diligent in his research and the result is the most detailed account of the events leading to the Spanish-American war that I personally have read. Along with that we have a great character study of the men who played a pivotal role in the country's decision to declare war on Spain, including Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, William Randolph Hearst, William James, and House Speaker Thomas "Czar" Reed. I truly feel I came to know each individual in great detail. The author also gives a riveting account of the battle of San Juan Heights, the battle that made Roosevelt a hero and ultimately led to his being in place to assume the presidency upon McKinley's assassination.

On the other hand, I almost put the book down before ever starting the first page. When I first opened the cover I was treated to a forward by the publisher making points on the book being about how great men will falsify truth in order to go to war, and how in this war American soldiers would engage in savage brutalities. True statements, by the way. He then follows these statements up by saying, No, this is not Dick Cheney's memoir. A rather idiotic comment if I ever read one. Whether you think Cheney is a great American fighting terrorism or the Antichrist whose sole purpose was to lead America into war for oil and profit, the Iraq war has absolutely no resemblance or comparison to the Spanish-American War. Different era, different type of events, different motivations, and actually a completely different result. Then, after reading 413 pages, the final sentence in the book tries to tie Cheney and Scooter Libby to the "old war lover" Roosevelt. If this was the author's purpose in writing the book, he failed miserably.

Again, overall I enjoyed reading The War Lovers. I came away knowing more about the events and the people than I ever knew. But as much as I enjoyed it I will also hesitate before picking up another book by Evan Thomas. Seriously, I can not stand dumb comparison's just to push an agenda. The amazing thing is, I'm not a fan of Dick Cheney in the least.

. . . but fails in its attempt to "connect the dots".

Evan Thomas' new book "The War Lovers" is an interesting and provocative read about the events leading up to the Spanish-American war. This is a part of American history that is little-known to most Americans and understudied. The events leading up to the war propelled Theodore Roosevelt to the forefront of national politics -- and eventually to the Presidency. The portrayal of Roosevelt prior to his presidential years paints a very different picture than the more cautious, less blustering gradual Progressive of his presidency.

Thomas fails, though, in a couple of points. 1) Much of the book seems to be as much amateur psychological analysis as history, and unless Thomas actually does have a background in psychology, his attempts at analysis fall into the realm of speculation. 2) Both the blurb on the back of the book, and the blurb on the inside cover seem bent on forcing a comparison between American policies of the late 1890's and American policies during the Bush administration, even to the point of ending with a portrait of Roosevelt peering down at Scooter Libby. Now I'm a political independent and am not going to use this review to argue for or against the merits of either the Spanish-American war or the Gulf war. But as an historian, the attempt at somehow linking to two foreign policies is extremely tenuous at best. Indeed, when discussing this book with a friend of mine -- also a political independent (but from a very different perspective from my own) also felt that the connection was forced.

To me, the book would have been far better if the author had merely told the story of the events leading up to the war and its aftermath, than trying to moralize. As it is, the premise is unproved.

Three stars.

Like most reviewers, I found THE WAR LOVERS highly enjoyable, both entertaining and educational, with its interesting insights into the personalities and political machinations of late 19th century America. Evan Thomas's writing is excellent, being engaging and imaginative, as he concisely details the history and influence of his star characters. This book, despite being quite long and full of interesting history, is a rather easy read. Even those with very little foreknowledge of the time and characters will feel comfortable reading this, as Evans does an excellent job of giving all pertinent back-story and keeping the focus on the basics. I have new found respect for the remarkable writing skills of Evan Thomas. This book also contains many nice black-and-white photos throughout, further connecting the reader to the time and maintaining the accessibility of the subjects.

THE WAR LOVERS is really a history told through limited biographies of some of the most powerful American Movers of the late 19th century. Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, William Randolph Hearst, William James, and Thomas Reed provide a broad spectrum upper-crust America's thoughts and attitudes during this time. Evan Thomas presents Teddy Roosevelt (the real star of the book) in a strikingly negative light, casting him as arrogant, bullying, not-always-truthful, and sometimes downright crazy. The other characters are given a more kind treatment here, but nothing is sugar-coated. As these powerful figures debate the future of America and its role in the world, the reader gets interesting insights into politics, human nature, the rich and powerful, and America of ~1900. The development of Manifest Destiny and the White Man's Burden are fascinating subjects of world history, and this book provides a wonderfully unique (but limited) glimpse into this period.

As others have observed, the blatant and almost snide political daggers contained within this book are unnecessary, distracting, and off-putting. I suspect that selling books provided the primary motivation for putting the silly comments about Iraq and Dick Cheney on the back cover and in the editor's comments. Really disappointing to see such senseless (and baseless) political jabbing into what is really a wonderfully-done and insightful book on history. And while I don't want to justify the attempts to link the invasions of Cuba and Iraq with a response, I do want to point out one glaring difference (among many). In 1898, American leaders didn't think that Cubans were fit for self rule (because of racism), while in 2003 American leaders were maybe over-confident in Iraqi's ability of self rule. This meant we planned on staying in Cuba as hegemon, while in Iraq, we had hoped to not stay.

One other comment. Thomas here claims that part of the reasons behind pushing for war (by Teddy and Cabot) was to unify the country. He fails to discuss the fact that in many ways that aspect of their plan succeeded, at least temporarily.

Overall, this is a very enjoyable book. Especially for history-lovers. This one will keep your attention and further develop your knowledge of this interesting part of American history. Just ignore the irrelevant political jabs. Recommended!

Evan Thomas is a fine journalist and historian, and I am as big a TR fan as you could hope to find. So I was hoping The War Lovers would be a great read. My reaction, however, is decidedly mixed.

Thomas analyzes the Spanish-American War, and the apparent need of certain leading Americans - Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, William Randolph Hearst - to engender a war with Spain to prove the nation's manhood. It's good if unspectacular as a primer on the Spanish-American War, and is worth reading on that score. Thomas's writing style is a bit clipped but he makes these hoary (if widely-forgotten) events interesting and compelling - even if he spends a bit too much time on the build-up to the conflict.

The most compelling sections, though, are his accounts of the war itself. Many other books have covered the same ground, but Thomas takes through the haphazard organization of the Army, its chaotic trip to Cuba, and the bumbling battles of Las Guasimas and San Juan Hill with admirable verve and detail. The only drawback is his glossing over the Filipino-American War, a topic where his connections to current events are more pertinent (as Stanley Karnow's In Our Image demonstrates).

However, I have serious reservations with Thomas's two biggest premises: his psychological explanations of TR and company's motivations for provoking conflict, and to compare it to the War in Iraq.

For the first, Thomas tries to peruse Roosevelt, Lodge and Hearst's correspondence and private letters to answer his main question. He engages in half-assed psychological profiling, ultimately coming up short in his inexpert analysis and musings. His depiction of TR as needing to prove his manhood by fighting a conflict is half-convincing, but extending this personal obsession to the nation at large is dubious. His argument that humanity intrinsically *needs* war is wholly unconvincing, sub-Robert Ardery pontification, and Thomas doesn't do much to support this claim. More interesting avenues - say, American trying to heal its Civil War wounds once and for all - are skimmed over or dropped. His answer to the question of why isn't wholly fleshed-out or convincing, especially in his portrayal of his individual subjects.

Thomas's portrayal of his protagonists is equally flawed. He's very harsh on Roosevelt in particular, focusing on his jingoism and racial views, which is harsh but not unfair. I would say, however, it's an incomplete portrait of a complex man. He does a better job with Hearst, but Lodge and the anti-war counterparts - Harvard Professor William James, Speaker of the House John Reed - seem lightweight ciphers. Thomas wants a dramatic balance between them but Roosevelt, and to a lesser extent Hearst, completely dominate the proceedings.

On the second score - the Iraq comparison - Thomas provides hardly anything to support this premise, stressed in the introduction but immediately dropped. There are some loose parallels - an arguably-unprovoked conflict, liberating a tyrannized people only to become their de facto colonizers, use of torture - but Thomas is really grasping at straws and does little to support his argument. In a bit that reminded me uncomfortably of Pat Buchanan's idiotic opus on WWII, the book ends with Scooter Libby staring at a portrait of TR in his office. Give me a break. I remember a History Channel special several years ago in which Thomas gave an interview stressing the same comparison. This may be a personal hobby-horse of his, but if so it's not a very productive one.

Don't misunderstand: We can (and should) learn a lot from our past. But making parallels with contemporary events has its own pitfalls, and often comes off as posturing to seem relevant. In books and articles I've read in just the last year, Iraq has been compared to the American Revolution (Patriot Battles by Michael Stephenson), World War II (Pat Buchanan's Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War) and the Algerian War for Independence (a Thomas E. Ricks review of A Savage War of Peace). And now the Spanish-American War. There are too many variables for these direct comparisons to succeed, and all of these gentlemen, whatever the other merits of their work, can't make a convincing case why Iraq and x-conflict should be conflated.

So, as an account of the Spanish-American War, The War Lovers is reasonably successful, and Thomas does a good job depicting America's delirious and alarming desire for conflict. But his key question - the *why* - isn't sufficiently answered, making for a disappointing read.

Talk about disappointing. I was excited to begin reading this book as I have enjoyed the writing of Evan Thomas in the past in other books and his articles in Newsweek.

The topic on this book is the lead-up to the Spanish-American War and the role a number of important and powerful Americans played in involving the United States in that war by tilting events in favor of 'war fever.'

Firstly, the book is very slow to develop as it describes the the personalities of people like Teddy Roosevelt, William Hearst, Henry Cabot Lodge. The message of the author seemed to be (whether you agree or not) is the characters were odious figures willing the nation to war for empire. I couldn't help but feel that the writer was taking every quote and statement from correspondence, memoirs and speeches to make the people involved look like blood-thirsty monsters, while those who opposed the war (like William James) emerge as more saintly figures.

Just as the author discusses how some people in the country felt manipulated by the efforts of the people discussed above in exorting the nation to go to war against Spain, I felt manipulated by the author into believing the entire Spanish-American War was one giant con-job. And I am not sure the historical record completely supports this conclusion. Thomas basically makes you believe that turn-of-the-century Americans were just too stupid to believe anyone who didn't support the march to war with enthusiasm (and where have I heard this exact argument before?). I didn't like this feeling and it really distracted from some very provocative information which emerges about the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor, for instance. It seemed like Thomas was tilting the information to support his theses, not to give the reader the full story in a more objective fashion.

Once the book is gripped by 'war fever' in the actual run-up to the War, the book is much, much better, and far more interesting. Unfortunately, this doesn't occur until more than 1/2 way through the book's 400 page length and I fear many readers will give up in frustration on the book. In fact, the last 1/2 of the book probably makes up for the mediocre aspect of the first 1/2 - though this is a close one, and I, too, almost gave up reading, and I am a patient reader.

Overall, though I give this book 3 stars, I still believe it is a good read and a worthwhile book. Certainly Thomas has done a service in letting us know that this nation has dealt with issues of torture; the meaning of empire and American colonialism, and the responsibility of American leaders to the concept of restraint in exercising American power in 'foreign entanglements.'

However, I did not like the author's ham-handed attempts to link the Spanish-American War to the Bush Administration and the Iraq War. Though history is a great guide, events are unique and have their own impetus. By so clearly inserting the author's views on the Bush Administration and the Iraq War into a work of history of a period 100 years prior, it really destroys the reliability of the book. Let the reader draw his own conclusions!

Worthwhile, but not great given its promise.

I found THE WAR LOVERS to be a well-researched, well-written and enjoyable look at the leading personalities on both factions (pro and con for War with Spain) of the American political scene in the era surrounding the Spanish American War.

Relying heavily on letters, period publications and memoirs of those involved, author Evan Thomas provides insight into what was going on in the minds of Roosevelt, Lodge, Hearst, James and Reed. I still don't quite know what to make of Theodore Roosevelt, but I DO have a better understanding of the man. The same for the others. Clearly, if this book shows anything, it's that knowing the personalities and ideologies of those involved in historic events is necessary to gaining an insight into those events. History is more than dates, places and simple events.

A very enjoyable writing style, interesting character studies and multiple illustrations make the book much less ponderous than one would suppose such a book would be. I give FIVE STARS to THE WAR LOVERS. Good coverage of the EVENTS of the war as well.

It did have some meandering parts towards the end regarding William James, but in generally was good reading. While I was expecting (and looking for) the ubiquitous bias (one way or the other) that seem to taint history books today, I never noticed any and felt free to draw my own conclusions. At the risk of taking flak, I'll venture to say that what I concluded was that the Spanish-American War is a much more significant event than it is generally given credit for. Far from being a "splendid little war" that isn't worth a second look, I've concluded that it was THE singular, pivotal point in the altering of American foreign policy (and by extension domestic policy) from the traditional Washingtonian "avoid foreign entanglements" to the modern tangled-up-in-everything policy.

Whether you think, as a nation, the United States is on the right road or the wrong road, THE WAR LOVERS will give the reader new insight to understanding HOW the United States got to where it is TODAY and the place Theodore Roosevelt holds in our history. Love him or hate him, give him the credit or assign him the blame, TR was the first of the Progressive presidents and started us down the path we are on. THE WAR LOVERS brings new glimpses into the workings of his mind. I highly recommend this book regardless of your political leanings.

A fast and engrossing read, this book is excellently researched and written, and captures the brash optimism and cultural arrogance of the dawn of the progressive era in America. The author expertly combines several vantage points leading up to the Spanish-American war, from the statesman, the media mogul, the philosopher and the brash young fire-brand, Teddy Roosevelt. This work illustrates how the competing views of America in the world have not changed substantially in 100 years. The Speaker of the House Reed, during the McKinley administration, is the most sympathetic figure in this book. With wisdom, judgment and iron fist, he was still unsuccessful in preventing America's entry into "a wonderful little war." William Randolph Hearst, one of the world's first yellow journalists, is a conflicted figure, shy, reserved, but bombastic when it came to telling his version of the truth. Henry Cabot Lodge comes across as a somewhat pitiful creature, caught between the desire for masculine expression and safety.The book explains how the war's proponents recognized that such a war would heal the wounds still festering in the country from the Civil War. The strength of this book is the factual information conveyed, the "big picture" explained and the anecdotes. I have two major criticisms of this book: First, the main characters are for the most part painted as mere caricatures of the real people. Each person in this book is portrayed so one-dimensional, as to read like fiction (thus, this book reads like fiction, "fun" and fast-moving fiction.) TR is presented as a swashbuckling and reckless self-promoter, which indeed at times aptly described him. But he was also brilliant, shrewd and often showed fantastic judgment, as judged even by his critics. The author doesn't spare the other main actors from being portrayed as predictable. Second, we are now in the era of books bashing America. Bradley's "The Imperial Cruise" is a good example of an author cherry-picking history to make an ideological point. This book does the same, but without the invective and the sarcasm. In fact, this book gives a much more objective and fair exposition of the imperialistic impulses that captured the majority around the turn of the 20th century. Like many readers, I am learning to partially tune out the ideological rant, and enjoy the scholarship and the good writing. This book is loaded with excellent scholarship, exciting writing and wit--one of the more entertaining pieces of history I've read in years. I heartily endorse this book. The only reason why I did not give it five stars was because of its subtle condescending message.

Author Evan Thomas has the knack for conveying immediacy to century-old events. Backed by effective and mostly unobtrusive supporting documentation, he also strongly conveys personality. Put together, The War Lovers makes for compelling reading.

Still, I sense a pervasive cant throughout Thomas' writing. One can only accept so much attribution of feeling, motive, mood, thought and so on - however apparently supported in documents - before suspecting the author's own motives. The reader needn't suspect for long. The publisher, by way of an editor's note right up front draws a disparaging parallel between the Iraq war and turn of the century American expansionism, right down to smugly mentioning Dick Cheney.

In spite of the above, I did enjoy the book. While Thomas perhaps overplays the roles played by Roosevelt (in particular) and Henry Cabot Lodge in the runup to war, he gives an insider's view of the politics of the time. Selectively focusing on some of the day's strongest personalities - Speaker of the House Thomas Reed, William Randolph Hearst, and William James - in addition to Roosevelt and Lodge, the tumult of letters, speeches, meetings, events, legislation, and news makes the book something of page-turner. Had I a wish, it would be that Thomas could provide even more context while maintaining the pace and mood he sets. But it's not to be. This is history through a lens.

In short, read The War Lovers with a grip on your credibility meter when it comes to overarching conclusions. Expect to have a few balloons legitimately punctured, though, as the mini-bio approach of the book fairly exposes the humanity of the principal figures. For my own part, I'm more satisfied with their reality than the oft cartoonish portrayals one gets elsewhere.

4 stars for bringing history alive.

"The War Lovers" introduces the reader to the remarkable handful of men who molded their country into a frame of mind which could not resist the siren call of war. Products of privilege, these three eccentric politicians each played a role in preparing the U.S. for its emergence into the Imperial Age. While Theodore Roosevelt, Cabot Lodge and William Randolph Hearst played leading roles, supporting actors in this drama are Henry Adams, Thomas Reed and William McKinley.

Theodore Roosevelt reached maturity as an energetic young man bound to make America purer, stronger and more virile. While rising in public life, he fought official corruption while compromising enough to maintain his own political viability. Taking advantage of the relaxed work ethic of Navy Secretary Long, Assistant Secretary Roosevelt prepared the Navy for the war with Spain while his collaborators prepared public opinion. It was in this position that TR expanded the fleet, arranged for supplies of coal and ammunition, transferred his friend, Commodore Dewey to the Far Eastern Fleet and issued the order under which the Philippines were captured. After setting everything in motion, Roosevelt abandoned his post to follow the siren call to martial glory as colonel in the Rough Riders, the most colorful and best known unit of the Spanish American War. A substantial portion of the book recalls the unit's mobilization, training, transport to Cuba and its crowded hour of combat with the enemy.

The second leading character is Henry Cabot Lodge, the Boston Brahmin of the Senate. It was Lodge who befriended Roosevelt and guided his advancement in Washington. Lodge was the legislative wing of the War Lovers who guided the appropriations that enabled the Navy to grow and ready itself for the coming war. After victory Lodge was a participant in the debate about what to do with the newly conquered islands of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines.

The most eccentric of this war-loving trio was William Randolph Hearst. Hearst's role in the drama was to build, through the Yellow Journalism of his newspapers, popular support for American intervention to liberate Cuba. Although they worked to common ends, Hearst was the odd man out in this project. Although Roosevelt and Lodge were close friends, a mutual antipathy existed between Hearst and the other two. While Lodge sought national power and TR pursued personal glory, Hearst's goal was to increase profits. As incredible as it sounds, Hearst started a war to sell newspapers! Along the road to war, Hearst agents sprung a woman from a Spanish prison and made her a media heroine. When war did come, Hearst traveled to Cuba from which his byline brought the glory of war to the American home front. Like Roosevelt, Hearst would run for mayor of New York and Governor of New York although his elective career would be limited to undistinguished two terms in the U.S. House of Representatives.

An only slightly less significant character in this book is Henry Adams who served as the catalyst who brought together TR, Lodge and others for intellectual exchange in his home, just blocks from the White House.

In any good book, the protagonists need antagonists. In this work, the peace loving antagonists were President William McKinley and Speaker of the House Thomas Reed. This book points out how McKinley sought peaceful solutions, such as the purchase of Cuba, before being forced into war by the public opinion stirred up by Hearst congressional pressure shepherded by Lodge.

Reed had ruled the House with an iron fist until he tried to divert the train of war on to the track of peace. Losing control by defeats on the issues of war and the disposition of its territorial spoils, Reed's dream of living in the White House faded as he traded the glamour of public life for the relative tranquility of a law office.

"The War Lovers" tells the story of a few representatives of a segment of society who actually love war. In the contemporary world, the "hawk" is usually one who wants peace, but is ready to fight, if necessary. These men were different. They really wanted war. A negotiated peace would actually have been a disappointment which would have deprived America of the chance to earn its place in the family of nations by the virile trial of combat. On a personal basis, TR worked tirelessly to ensure that his Rough Riders would get to the front before the Spanish surrendered.

In this work, as in life, it seems that experience brings wisdom. A youthful TR, ashamed of his father's purchase of a substitute in the Civil War, lusted for the strife and glory of battle. His two antagonists, McKinley and Reed, who fought for peace, had been tempered by their service in the Civil War. An older and wiser Theodore Roosevelt would later serve as president for seven and one-half years during which the American military fired no shots in anger.

Author Evan Thomas has done an excellent job in bringing to life his subjects, their moment in history and the unique character traits which made them "The War Lovers."

For people unfamiliar with all but the most basic elements of the Spanish-American War, this is a decent overview to the war itself, its background, and its fallout. But, there's not a lot of depth there, especially given how more depth would relate more to his main thesis.

Thomas paints the run-up to war as the (alleged or putative) beginning of American imperialism. He even, as a couple of reviewers note, plays this off the Iraq War.

That said, if Thomas really wanted to underscore the imperialism issue, why dismiss the three years of official war in the Philippines, and a full decade of unofficial war after that, including its waterboarding and concentration camps, with just a couple of paragraphs? Why not give more information on the 1893 coup and "pineapple republic" in Hawaii? Why not more on President Cleveland, as well as Czar Reed, as an anti-imperialist?

Given the large font and line leading of the book, it's really not that long, as it is. More material could easily have been included.

The other thing is that the Spanish-American War wasn't the beginning of American imperialism, of course. From the Puritan and Cavaliers who started British America disdaining American Indians organized as nations -- eve n more so, those with regular governments, agriculture, etc. -- through a war of imperialism against Mexico, and on to greedy eyes fixed on Cuba a decade after that (there's a bit of pre-1899 U.S.-Cuba history in the book but not much), America's long had imperialism to spare.

In other words, if Thomas had wanted to make a statement, he could have made a bigger one than he did. Like placing American imperialism in the context of American exceptionalism.