William Tyler
America 1900: A Situation Report
William Tyler - America 1900: A Situation Report
- Thank you very much indeed, and to everyone who’s listening, it’s lovely to be with you all again on lockdown. I wish sometimes, I feel I would like to meet you all, or at least see you all. And I simply can’t put up hundreds of people on my screen, but it’s nice to know you are there. And today I’m taking the subject of 1900, the turn from the 19th to the 20th century. The turn of any century gives a time for countries and nations and for historians, as well as for families, to reflect on what has been, what is, and what may be to come. It’s a time, it’s an arbitrary date, of course, but we always celebrate the beginning of a century with a huge amount of celebration, don’t we? The year 1900 is absolutely no different from any other turn of the century, except we all know what lies ahead. For the Americans it lies 17 years ahead, for the Europeans, 14 years ahead, and that is the first World War. The grimace of wars. If war was already in the minds of many in Europe as a distinct possibility, as a recently unified Germany was beginning to flex its muscles, then in America, well, from its very inception in the 1770s, America had kept outside of European politics and outside of European wars, most notably in the Napoleonic wars. It was very largely uninterested what was happening in Europe. After all, the 19th century had seen many Europeans leave their countries through poverty and persecution and cross the Atlantic to seek a new life in America. And Americans realised, of course, that they had many different nationalities, and thus it was important to make them American, rather than let them continue as Germans, Italians, and British. Now, although that of course happened, America was largely successful in creating a new nation from people from buried nations. In fact, the majority, the vast majority of America’s population in 1900 was European.
America’s policy of isolationism from Europe was a policy that was intended in part to keep external threats at bay. And it was as long ago as 1823, really quite at the beginning of the 19th century, that the then President James Monroe had formulated his famous doctrine named after himself, the Monroe Doctrine, and to short circuit the story, let me just read from Alan Axelrod’s book. “The origin of the Monroe Doctrine is found in the turbulent years of the Napoleonic Wars. These wars touched South America, sparking widespread revolution against Spain and Portugal. After peace was reestablished in Europe in 1815, Spain began making noises about reclaiming its colonies. President Monroe responded in his 1823 Message to Congress with four principles, the Monroe Doctrine.” This is not only anti-European or an isolation, I should say from Europe, but also a warning shot across Europe’s colonial powers to keep out of the southern continent of the Americas as well as the northern. And the four principles that Monroe laid out were one, the Americas plural were no longer available for colonisation by any power. And thus it meant, and included not only the United States itself, but included South America too. Secondly, the political system of the America’s, plural, was essentially different from that of Europe. No mention here that South America and North America, but constitutionally were wildly different. Three, the United States would consider any interference by European powers in the Americas a direct threat to US security. In other words, it didn’t want to have a powerful neighbour in the southern continent, or indeed in central America, that could threaten the United States itself.
Fourthly, and this is most important, the United States would not interfere with existing colonies or with the internal affairs of European nations, nor would the United States, key, key phrase, nor would the United States participate in European wars. There you have it, a policy of isolationism. Now looking at 1900 with hindsight, we know that that principle is going to be breached in 1917 when America enters the first World War and sends men and material to the western front. But it’s important to remember isolationism because it rears its head again in the interwar years. It cannot in the post-war years because America goes from the Second World War into the Cold War, which on occasions, Korea, Vietnam, for example, become the hot war. And now with a possibility of a new American, well, an old American president coming back in Trump, then isolationism may well appear again. So American isolationism based back in 1823 is still at the back of minds of European politicians in the 21st century. What if America washes its hands of Europe and concentrates instead on China with its fleet and its forces in the East and South China seas as China threatens Taiwan? Well, we shall have to wait and see, but for now, in 1900, the policy of Monroe is already being challenged. I said it’s going to be really challenged in terms of Europe in 1917. But from the late 1880s onwards, America begins to flex its muscle, not in a war-like way to begin with, but it, for example, in 1887, America purchased Alaska from Russia at the knocked down price of $72 million. Sorry, $7.2 million, $7.2 million. I bet there are houses that cost more than that. Well, certainly if Trump has put a figure on the house. In the same year, America took uninhabited adults in Midway Island in the Pacific as a base, hence Midway. And of course, that is to become a important element in the war at sea in World War II. But America was forced.
It wasn’t forced by politicians into involvement in other countries affairs. It was pushed by American entrepreneurs and businessmen. So for example, it was pushed in Hawaii because of sugar, and the sugar plantation owners, American, with Japanese, many of Japanese working in the sugar fields push America politically into in the end incorporating Hawaii as a territory. And then of course, as it is now, a full scale, full-blown state of the United States. But it was the fight with Spain in 1898 in Cuba. And again, with Cuba, it’s all about sugar and money and the American businessmen, again, forced. Now you can say that the story, the Spanish American War is a strange one, and there are all sorts of indications of why. But basically America was in support of business, entrepreneurial outlook in Cuba. As a result of the war with Spain, the colonial power in Cuba, America not only fought there, but it fought further afield. It gained the Philippines. Well, Spain was forced to sell the Philippines for the grand total of just over 200 dollars. Sorry, 2000 dollars. I’m not getting my figures right today, 2000 dollars. It also acquired Guam, Puerto Rico, Wake Island, and over Cuba itself. It really became the, well, Cuba really became a state of the United States until Castro took over in 1959. Puerto Rico, I’m sure all the Americans know, it becomes a unincorporated territory of the United States. And Guam and Wake Island are simply taken by the United States. So the United States is now at the end of the 19th century with the purchase of Alaska. We’ve taken control of the Philippines, of Hawaii, of Guam, of Puerto Rico, of Midway Island, of Wake Island, and of Cuba, becoming like the European colonial powers. It’s taking territory.
But if we refer to this as an American empire, it doesn’t take off in the way that the Europeans have done because America isn’t really interested in these territorial gains. Why not? Because it has enough territory itself. It doesn’t need colonies. Moreover, it has all the goods that the earth can supply, unlike Britain, which of course is dependent upon bringing raw goods in from the empire and sending out manufactured goods, America doesn’t need to do that. And America doesn’t create in the 20th century an empire like that of Britain or other European powers. But it looked for a moment in time after the Spanish American War that America might be tempted to expand further by warfare. It does not. America’s strength is not in having colonies and an empire for the reasons I’ve said. America is big enough and has enough resources, it doesn’t need to. So what does America, where is America’s strength? This country, which is increasingly becoming important, America’s strength is gaining and is there for the world to see if it opens its eyes by 1900. In Professor Herring of the University of Kentucky’s book, “The American Century and Beyond”, Herring writes this of the American Spanish war. “The war itself had been reduced to comic opera. Its consequences dismissed as an aberration.‘ What I’ve been saying. "Such treatment undermines the notion of war by design, allowing Americans to cling to the idea of their own noble purposes and sparing them responsibility for a war they came to see as unnecessary and imperialist results, they came to regard as unsavoury.” Well, America as expressed after the first World War by President Woodrow Wilson at Versailles, is very against empires. It’s what put him at odds with France and Britain, because he wanted self-determination. Now, he got self-determination in Europe, but France and Britain refused to take that principle into their empires. But America has always taken a view that, well, quite a modern view of course now, but not modern in 1919 when Wilson was pushing a view that empires were a wrong way to go.
So Herring goes on to say this, “Such interpretations also ignore the extent in which the war and its consequences represented a logical combination of major trends in 19th century American foreign policy. It was less a case of the United States coming upon greatness almost inadvertently than of its possessing its destiny deliberately and purposely.” Yes, but Americans think of their destiny, not in terms of territorial aggrandisement. That’s not their way. John Lewis writes this and he says, “American foreign policy changed from isolationism to imperialism. The new compass direction for manifest destiny was abroad.” Manifest destiny. We’re right back to the puritans. God has selected America to be the moral judge, if you like, of the world. It’s beginning to flex its muscles against the failing British empire. The British empires already declining by 1900. “So American foreign policy changed from isolationism to imperialism. The new compass direction for manifest destiny was abroad. The war with Spain was begun in Cuba, but concluded with the USA seizing Spain’s Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico. By 1900, the signs were there for all the world to see. America had the money, the people, the guns, and the self-belief to be a superpower.” It did, but it wanted to be a different sort of superpower. And what did that mean? Well, it meant that the United States basically, post 1900 or 20th century, would see itself as the defender of western society, as the defender of democracy, and as the moral judge of the world in the way that Britain had seen itself up to 1914.
But the Americans saw what they did was to have influence, influence via money, economic influence largely, and also if necessary intervention. And that might be political, but often military intervention, hence the wars that America was involved with in the Cold War, in Korea and Vietnam in particular. So America Empire is one of influence thanks to the dollar and if necessary, intervention, preferably as in Korea and Vietnam with allies. Hence America’s support the NATO. It doesn’t need NATO, the Europeans offer very little as American politicians will only be too pleased to say to what America spends. Just look at what America has given Ukraine in comparison to NATO, the rest of NATO. But America needs those allies. It needs to have this moral crusade, if you like, a phrase that was used, remember in the Iraq war, a crusade. So although America is beginning to flex its muscles by 1900 as a major power, and then by the end of the 20th century as a superpower, it is not an imperial power in the old British 19th century sense. It’s different. And it’s important, I think, to recognise that difference. So what is this power based on? Well, I said it was the dollar, of course on military might we know that, but that really comes about post World War II with the Cold War, with the arms race with Russia and so on. But the basis of American power status at the beginning of the 20th and the end of the 19th century is I think based on three main pillars. First of all, or four main pillars, really self-belief. The archetypal picture that many Europeans have of Americans is how self-confident Americans are. And in Britain, we look at self-confident Americans and say, well, we had self-confidence prior to 1914. I don’t think we do have that sort of self-confidence in our nation. Now, maybe the Americans listening tonight will say, well, that’s now under attack here as well. But we’re not talking about the 21st century.
We’re talking about the 20th. There’s a self-confidence in America. They feel confident in their own skins. They’re Americans, not Germans who’ve immigrated from Germany. Not Italians, not Serbs, not anything. They’ve become American. And it’s the immigrant numbers which help enormously. Why? Because the immigrant numbers really fuel the workforce. That is to say both the industrial workforce and the agricultural workforce. They have an almost endless supply of people wishing to come to America and share in the American dream. Thirdly, America by 1900 has expanded westwards from sea to shining sea as the American song has it. And in doing so, it’s opened up the vast area of the prairies to agriculture, and it’s opened up the Pacific as America looks east as well as it looks west. In fact, it looked more to the east than to the west, except of course the two world wars, particularly the first, forced it to look west. And in the second World War, you remember that there is some disagreement between Roosevelt and Churchill. Churchill wanting to invade Europe across the Mediterranean after the African campaign, and America wishing to take the fight to the Japanese. So there is this, and that remains today, as I was saying earlier in a slightly different format, America is torn between looking west and looking east. It’s tried to do both. The question is, will it any longer do both in the sense of will it have the political will to do both or just say to the Europeans, just get on with it, pay for your own defence, or will it politically say we don’t want anything to do with the West. The sort of Trump view of NATO, if you will.
And then the fourth pillar on which American strength is built at the turn of the century, was the industrial expansion. America becomes the powerhouse of industry and manufacturing. Britain may have started the industrial revolution, but Britain is falling desperately behind by 1900. The torch has been passed, the torch of the defender of civilization, as the west would say it, the defender of western values of democracy, of the rule of law, and of industry, and developments have passed. People in Britain didn’t recognise it at the time. They didn’t even recognise it in 1918, and many politicians didn’t recognise it in 1945. But the truth is, the torch had already crossed the Atlantic from London to Washington. Immigration then, immigration from Europe in volume alone was simply staggering, fleeing poverty, persecution, and the hopes of making it in the land of opportunity. The immigrants came from Ireland, Germany, Russia, including Finland, Poland and Belarus, all part then of Czarist Russia. The Austria-Hungarian Empire, massive empire across Europe with many, many suffering persecution and poverty, particularly in the Balkans. Italy, particularly southern Italy, crushed by poverty in southern Italy. From Greece, from Spain, from Serbia, from everywhere. It would appear that the poor and the persecuted sought solace and opportunity in the United States. If we just take Italians alone, in the 1890s alone, 600,000 Italians came to the States. And by 1920, just after the end of the first World War, the Italian population in the states was 4 million. And those numbers are enormous. And then you multiply on and on and on.
If we look at the figures of the population, oh, incidentally I should say that there was increased immigration from both China and poverty and from Japan poverty. The Americans took a different view of Japanese and Chinese because they weren’t white, and there were restrictions placed upon them, but they needed them for labour. The Chinese, for example, worked on the railways. The Chinese also worked in the garment industry, and they worked in agriculture. And their first sighting is in the gold fields of California. The Japanese worked, as I said, in sugar plantations in Hawaii and then came to the West coast, which is going to prove a problem in 1941, '42. But it’s the European settlers, immigrants that make the difference. If we look at population, it’s staggering. In the year 1800 America had a population of 5.3 million, 5.3 million. By 1890, it had a population of 62.9 million. And between 1819 and 1900, the last decade of the 19th century, the population rose from 62.9 million to 76.2 million. So in a century, it had moved from just over 5 million to just over 76 million. Wow. But it didn’t have a problem with immigration, because there’s land, there’s enormous amount of land. And the population spreads out and America is able to satisfy its population agriculturally, cattle on the great plains, for example, but also to find work for them because of the urbanisation of America in the 19th century, particularly after the American Civil War of the 1860s. There’s just opportunities for people. Those figures of population speak for themselves, but they also speak in another way, why America does not want to get involved in European wars. For example, in World War I, does it want to really go into the war as an ally of Czarist Russia, this has persecuted so many American Jews who’ve left Russia? And does it really want to fight Germany when there are so many German manufacturing interests, which are American?
It has a difficult line to tread as a new country dealing with all these issues. And the remarkable thing is it managed to do it. And you could argue that the two world wars had a binding effect on American society. So I’ve said something about the population expansion. What about western expansion from sea to shining sea? Well, throughout the 19th century, the expansion westwards, go west young man, was a great feature of American society during the whole of the 19th century, but especially from the mid-century onwards, shall we say, from the end of the American Civil War onwards. And what was the crux of that? And the crux of it was transport, and it was the railway, the railways are so significant across the world in terms of history. They were central to America’s development of the west. This is the rough history, rough guide, history to America, just again, short circuit. Let me just read you a passage here, and it reads like this. “On May the 10th, 1869, a golden spike was driven into the ground at Promontory Point, Utah linking the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads and completing the first transcontinental railway.” They’ve done it! What an achievement! what an achievement. And they bound east and west together, no question of the West breaking away as the south had intended to do, it’s bounded together by a railway and by money and by commercial interests. By the 1890 census, the American census of 1890. I read this, this is from Clement’s book, which I was using last time. Clements writes this of the 1890 census.
“The US Census Bureau declared that now the West was fully settled in 1890. There was no longer a frontier. For the first time there was no undeveloped land available in the United States.” Well, that’s not entirely true because there was lot of land to go round. But what is true is that the west and east were now linked inextricably. And here the official census, the US Bureau census declares the frontier ended. Now in 1893, that’s after of course that census, in 1893, the American historian Turner laid out his very famous frontier doctrine. It’s been much debated since what Turner said is America was made by moving forward frontier to frontier, until it reached the other sea. And many people, many American historians have criticised that look at America. One of the things it did, harking back to American empires, and its lack of interest in an old style 19th century imperialism is because it imposed imperialism in its own continent from east to west. And thus, I think I’m still think Turner has a lot to say, and all of you who are Star Trek fans, or Trekkies as they call, I’m not, but Trekkies, you’ll know that every Star Trek episode begins with the phrase, the final frontier. Interesting, the final frontier, space. There’s been a new book by Marshall produced called “The Future of Geography”, which is about space and indeed the race in space for resources and maybe even for settlements is already underway. So maybe the Americans do have a drop on others because of this frontier mentality. But in terms of America itself, the western frontier is to all intents and purposes, closed in 1890, a decade before the end of the year. But there’s a dark side to the expansion westwards over the plains. And that’s the destruction of another society, that of the indigenous Americans.
A way of life, a culture, which is destroyed by guns, by the American army, but also by barbed wire. First put up around the farms, the very large ranches I say, not farms. And there’s intermittent warfare throughout the 19th century, but particularly from the end of the Civil War onwards, particularly over the Great Plains and the tribes of the Great Plains. And with disease, sometimes mercilessly introduced into indigenous communities by giving them blankets which had been used by smallpox victims, for example. Or simply by killing them, forcing them into reservations. And you can date the end of that to the same year that the US Bureau of Censuses dated the end of the frontier, 1890. Because in December, 1890 Wounded Knee in South Dakota, there was a massacre in which 153 men, women, and children of the Sioux tribe were killed. We are fortunate to have an indigenous American’s voice telling us of this, Chief Black Elk who was actually there, wrote, and wrote in English so we can read it. He said, “Then suddenly nobody knew what was happening except that the soldiers were all shooting. And the waggon guns began going off right in among the people. Many were shot down right there. The women and the children ran into the dolch and up west, dropping all the time for the soldiers shot them as they ran. There were only about a hundred warriors, and there were nearly 500 soldiers. The warriors rushed to where they had piled their guns and knives. They fought soldiers with only their hands until they got their guns.
Dog Chief saw a yellow bird run into a teepee with his gun, and from there he killed soldiers until the teepee caught fire. Then he died full of bullets. It was a good winter day when all this happened. The sun was shining. But after the soldiers marched away from their dirty work, a heavy snow began to fall. The wind came up in the night, there was a big blizzard, and it grew very cold. The snow drifted deep in the crooked gulch, and it was one long grave of butchered women and children and babies who’ve never done any harm and were only trying to run away.” Well, all the Americans listening know for well, the dark side, this dark side of American history. It in a sense was glossed over at the time. And in my youth in Britain as well as my contemporaries in America, Buffalo Bill bought his wild rest show to Britain. And he brought with him, he brought with him some of the members of Indian tribes to put on a show, a wild west show, a cowboy show, a cowboy and Indian show like many of us of my age watch in the cinema. And nobody thought to question it really at the time then. And so we were given a rather imperial view, if you like, that civilization was brought to these people who were, so that story goes, uncivilised. And I’ve got a piece here, which is really rather horrendous to read, but I want to read it because it a great deal. This is General Sherman who writes to his brother and says, well, let me tell you what he does say. It’s very, very worrying. He’s, well, he is so, so damning. He wants, he just wants to make it clear that the Indians are uncivilised, they cannot be civilised, and therefore must be killed.
But his brother will be pleased to know that each year they are killing more and more of the Native Americans. It’s not a good story, it’s not a good story, but it’s part of the story of America. And now of course, we have Native Americans making a greater impact even politically in society, in America, and on a wider plane. We are very, very sure that the indigenous Americans have a lot to teach us about protection of the environment, something we destroyed. And the Americans destroyed the buffalo. And now we know how vital all of these things are in terms of the environmental crisis we’re facing here in Britain. We’ve reintroduced European bison to Britain to see what if we can recover some of the land which is being lost through environmental depredation, in America too and in Canada, we know what happened. So all of this feeds in to today, remember that today, whatever country you live in, we are where we are because of where we’ve come from. Sometimes if things are successful, people talk about standing on the shoulders of giants, but sometimes we’re left clearing up the mess left by previous generations. Environment is an obvious example today, but so was the, can I use the word? The near genocide at least of the indigenous American people. So history is always complex. It’s never always as clear cut as you would wish it to be because history is written usually by the victors and it was written largely by white Americans. Only now are these things being reexamined and re-question and looked at in different ways. Now, the third thing I wanted to talk about was the industrial revolution railways. Between 1830 and 1870, there were 40,000 miles of railways in the states. By 1890, there were 110,000 miles of railways.
And why is that important? It’s infrastructure. It’s getting manufactured goods and even agricultural goods to ships to be shipped abroad. By the end of the century we’ve got refrigerated ships they can bring stuff across the Atlantic. America also was so fortunate in its industrial revolution. It had resources, wood, coal, iron, and oil. And oil is going to be critical in the 20th century. It had a population that was automatically increasing year by year with immigrants coming in, providing a workforce. It had unity following the end of the Civil War. This is a big country with unity, with unity of economic policy now that the federal state is in charge, and it had something which Britain is beginning to lose. And that is, well, we talked about the self-confidence of Americans, but the self-confidence of American entrepreneurs, Carnegie, JP Morgan, Rockefeller, and many, many more who had an enormous impact, not only on America, but on the world. If we just take statistics alone between 1859 and 1899, in other words, the second half of the 19th century, the value of manufactured goods rose by an extraordinary percentage of 62.2%, from 1.8 million to 13 billion. From 1.8 million in 1859, to $13 billion in 1899. This is the true strength of the American power bid, if you like to put it that way, of American power in the 20th century is the power of the mighty dollar. I want to give just a couple of examples or so of the entrepreneurs that we associate with America of this period, and I’m using David Reynolds from “America Empire of Liberty”. It’s just a quick way of doing it when I’ve only got an hour. And this is first of all, a man who’s, well, in Britain is very well known because we all have Heinz tomato sauce. Heinz tomato soup.
I had Heinz tomato sauce last night, my dinner, I had Heinz tomato soup with my lunch. HJ Heinz had a genius for advertising. Advertising becomes so important in the 20th century. “Heinz had a genius for advertising. There was the trademark Green pickle pin stamped with the name Heinz handed out to all and Sundry and the famous 57 varieties slogan that echoed around the world.” Not just in America, but around the world. “According to Heinz, when sitting on a train in Manhattan, he noticed a shoe advert headed 21 styles. He said to himself, we do not have scales of products, but we do have varieties of products. Counting up he went well beyond 57, but he decided that seven was a lucky number and people would associate it with good things. Hence, he chose 57 varieties as the slogan to flog Heinz foods.” Fantastic. Then of course there is Rockefeller and oil, and oil is going to be so important. Well, the first major oil was found in West Pennsylvania in 1859 at Drake’s Well, but it was 1901 at the beginning of the 20th century that Texas hit oil in a big way at Spindle Top. And oil is going to be vital as we come into the 21st century, and America has, it would seem at the time, limitless supplies. “The Titanic vigour in oil was John D Rockefeller, whose standard oil company relentlessly bought up all major rivals to dominate both extraction and refining. Rockefeller was raised a Baptist in an evangelical revival in the middle of the 19th century.
He amassed great wealth by cutthroat ruthlessness, and gave much of it away in systematic philanthropy, outdoing the steel magnets at both ends. His biographer, Ron Cherno, called him an 'amalgam of of godliness and greed, compassion and fiendish cunning.’ He established standard oil trust, broken up in 1911, however, because it was said to be by the Supreme Court against antitrust legislation. Or under antitrust legislation I should say.” So we’ve got Rockefeller, we’ve got Heinz, we’ve got Carnegie, we’ve got so many of them, and just around the corner, just around the corner we have Henry Ford. And Henry Ford is very important. Why? Because we enter an age of mass production. And there is an interesting comment of British visitors, and it goes like it goes like this. In the mid 19th century, British observers have started taking note of what they called the American system of manufacturers, especially appointed committee of military experts had toured US munitions factories in 1854, time at the Crimea War, and then reported to the House of Commons with near incredulity on the way muskets were made in America, not individually by skilled craftsmen, but by an unskilled labourer, assembling with the help of only a thumbscrew, interchangeable parts that have been produced by machines. They said, quote, ‘With regard to the fitting of these muskets when thus interchange, the committee our opinion that all the parts were as close and the muskets as efficient as they were before the interchange took place.’“ And Ford took that to new levels with his car plants.
America is changing Britain’s industrial revolution. You look now to the states for the big changes in manufacturing. That’s a positive story. We’ve only hit one distinctly un-positive part, the dealing with indigenous Americans. But there is another dark side of this period which we cannot really ignore, which is corruption. You can make the case that it was the North’s victory in the Civil War leading to carpetbaggers moving into the south, that really kicked off what you can really describe as an age of corruption. And I’m going give you one example of a Northerner who made money, big money in the south, a man called Henry Warmouth, W-A-R-M-O-U-T-H, Warmouth. And Reynolds tells his story briefly in this particular way, and I find this very instructive. It goes like this. "Henry Warmouth was a native in Illinois, but after the Civil War, he made his name and his fortune down south. According to an investigation by the US Congress, Warmouth, retired from the army in 1865, went to Texas, was indicted there for embezzlement and appropriating government cotton. He moved to Louisiana and got himself elected governor of Louisiana. His annual salary was $8,000, but he told congressional investigators he made more than $100,000 in the first year, and by the 1870s was estimated to be worth anything up to 1 million dollars.” Corruption in business, corruption in politics. Clements writes of corruption in politics in this way. And we cannot avoid it. At this time, late 19th century, Britain’s politics are not corrupt. Don’t ask me to defend that today, and certainly don’t ask me to defend it in the 18th century or the beginning of the 19th century. But this is really a process to use a modern phrase, and Britain being through the process of dealing with corruption, and America has yet to do that. So it is not throwing mud, please, all my American listeners, I’m not throwing mud at America because you can equally throw mud at Britain.
But the timescale is different because the opportunities for corruption were there in 18th century, early 19th century Britain, and not there in late 19th century Britain. Whereas they were there in post Civil War America. And Clement’s writes of political corruption. “Political corruption was widespread at all levels. Federal government was wrapped by a series of scandals. In September 1869, a group of speculators tried fraudulently to gain control of the gold market. President Grant was closely associated with two of their leaders. Grant was personally honest, but appointed corrupt cronies to high office. His private secretary, Orval Babcock, and Secretary of William Bel, were involved in the whiskey ring scandal of 1875, which defrauded the American taxpayer of millions in revenue. City governments in particular were associated with corruption, with local political bosses controlling the votes of large groups through patronage and favours, the case of New York is typical.” From which of course we get the phrase Tammany Hall, which is used in Britain as well as in America for corrupt local government. And we have had our share of corrupt local government, as has America. And there were people who were opposed to it, who adopted a long quick, Native American word Mugwumps. They were thought of as holier than thou against corruption. Sometimes they supported Democrats, sometimes they supported Republicans. And we’ll pick up their story later because it is an interesting story. We should also pick up the story at a later time about organised crime and corruption. And so in the last few minutes we have, I come to 1900 itself. America, as we’ve seen, is emerging as a world power.
And now it’s sending troops alongside Europeans and Japanese troops to defeat the Boxer Rebellion in China and free the Western American and Japanese diplomats who are being held as hostages, or maroons rather, in the Embassy district of Beijing. Interestingly, some of you may remember the Hollywood film “55 Days at Peking”. Well, in truth, the answer is it wasn’t the great US army that rescued everybody. The largest and most significant contribution came interestingly from Japan. But there were all sorts of people. They’re the British, the French, Austro-Hungarian, et cetera, et cetera, Russians. But it was the Japanese that played the biggest part. McKinley was reelected as president in the 1900 election and chose Teddy Roosevelt as his vice president. And so we now move into 1901 and the new century. Cuba technically became entirely independent, although in fact, it remains a client state. There’s a revolt in the Philippines against American rule, which is put down. The Philippines used to say we lived three centuries in a Spanish monastery. And then we lived a century in an American whorehouse. It’d be a good title for undergraduates to write a essay on it, wouldn’t it? Carnegie Rockefeller and Morgan established US Steel Corporation, the first billion dollar corporation in the history of the United States, all in 1901. McKinley was shot by an anarchist. There were anarchists. Anarchism was a big movement in Europe and it spread to America. And McKinley was shot, and thus Teddy Roosevelt becomes president. The Panama Canal was constructed, and interestingly, America in a sense almost asked Britain for permission to build it. It’s an interesting relationship in terms of the beginning of the Panama Canal between America and Britain. But as I’ve said before, the reality is that Britain is failing as a war part and America is rising. And where the two part, you can make your own decision.
For me, the answer is 1917, when America comes into the First World War. The American century, I’ve written on my notes here, has begun. And the British empire begins its decline. Americans and indeed Britains refer to the 20th century as the American century. And that’s what we’ve been talking about, the shift from Britain to America of power, the American century. The phrase was not used until February 1941. In other words, prior to America’s entry into the war. In February, 1941, the publisher Henry Lus wrote an article, and in that article he says this. Throughout the 17th and the 18th century and the 19th century, this continent, America, this continent teamed with manifold projects and magnificent purposes. Above them all and weaving them all together into the most exciting flag of all the world and all of history was the triumphal purpose of freedom. It is in this spirit that all of us are caught, each to his own measure of capacity and each in the widest horizon of his vision, to create the first great American century.“ Of course, he was writing it in the context of the Second World War and of his belief and many Americans beliefs that they should come into that war. They didn’t, of course, until the December of that year when Pearl Harbour is attacked by the Japanese. He went on to say in this article, February of ‘41, 'Democracy and other American ideals would do their mysterious work of lifting the life of mankind from the level of beast to what the psalm is called, a little lower than the angels.” Back to the puritans, again, back to the Bible. The psalm is called a little lower than the angels. And this is America’s mission, given by God, to do their mysterious work. God moves in mysterious ways. Do their mysterious work of lifting the life of mankind, not Americans, of mankind, from the level of the beast to what the psalmists called, a little lower than the angels. There is manifest destiny writ large in February 1941.
I’m going to finish with a quotation from later, an American quotation from later in the 20th century. And with this I will finish, it is of course John F. Kennedy. “Let the word go forth from this time and place to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace.” I talked about the torch being passed from Britain to America. Now Kennedy is saying it’s passed from one generation of Americans to another. And this new generation has been tempered by war, the first war and his war, the second war, and disciplined by a hard and bitter peace. The way of superpowers is never easy. It’s never easy. It’s open to criticism at the time internally, to criticism at the time externally, and to much criticism afterwards with hindsight, both internally and externally. We know that in Britain, because of the extraordinary amount of literature being produced at the moment, which is basically saying the British empire was bad. Well of course it wasn’t, nor was it good. It’s partly bad and partly good.
And so is the American supremacy partly good and partly bad. That’s the nature of being the country who takes that responsibility. But at the end of the day, at the end of the day, as Churchill said in 1940, the whole of western civilization depends on this island. Until, he said, from across the ocean, he said The Americans will come. Which of course, America did in 1942. And because of the exercise of Britain to repel invasion in 1940 and the arrival of the Americans in 1942 to give ultimate victory, civilization in Europe was saved. Western democracy was saved. So for all the bad that the British and the Americans are accused of, and there are many things that are bad, and we’ve looked at corruption, we’ve looked at the treatment of indigenous Americans, no one can defend that today. No one would want to defend any of that. But nevertheless, where would we be if America hadn’t risen up in 1900 to catch the torch flung by the British as they went into decline? Thank you ever so much for listening. I hope you enjoyed that as much as I enjoyed preparing it. Let’s see if I’ve, oh, I’ve got lots of questions.
Q&A and Comments:
Oh, Ed, yes, I do remember you, Ed, yes, I do. I’m putting a face to the name. Yes, I can remember. No, the volume is nothing to do with me. We’ve been through this so many times, Francine, the volume must be your end. If volume was a problem, everyone would have the same issue, and they don’t. So I’m really sorry. It may be that your reception is mad. It may be that your equipment isn’t up to it, but it won’t be this end. If it was this end, you would all be unable to hear.
Q: Oh, that’s a good question, Margaret. “How did Monroe have the authority to tell Europe not to interfere in South America?”
A: He had the authority of American money and American arms is the truth. That’s and no, and Britain actually helped of course, some of those southern American countries to break free. And so America and Britain were not divided on that.
Q: “If the US”, says Tim “does become isolation stable, that having implications for the Russian Ukrainian war?”
A: Absolutely. Well, the theory is of course, if it was Trump that became president, the money might stop altogether. And that has huge implications of what Russia might then do in other parts of Europe like the Baltic. It would be a very foolish move for America to take because nothing is quite as isolated now as it might’ve been in the 19th century. If there becomes a massive war in Europe, America’s forced into it. Alaska was purchased in, didn’t I give the wrong date? I’m sorry, love. Simon says 156 million.
Q: How does Teddy Roosevelt fit into this manifest destiny and imperialism?
A: I’m sorry I haven’t got time to go into that, but maybe I can say a word about that next week.
Q: “Will the demographic change in the USA population bring about a change in the policies around the world?”
A: I don’t know the answer to that, James. I really don’t know the answer to that.
Carol says, “It is strange Americans see themselves as a champions of western, liberal, democratic way of life, but had the oppression of their own black population.” Yes, of course. And that is the same as indigenous Americans. There’s no different from any other European country that saw itself in terms of, oh, I’ve lost it. Hang on. In terms of the superiority of the white races, I can’t say any more than that. Where are we? Sorry, I’ve lost it.
Q: Barry, “Why did America not come to Africa and take over many countries there? I grew up in Rhodesia where we had the best tobacco and grass fed cattle.”
A: Well, the answer is in your question, Barry, because Americans had plenty of grass for cattle and they had plenty of land for tobacco. They didn’t need anywhere, and they did not have a desire to be imperialistic like Europeans. So it’s partly in American DNA against European empires. But that comes about 'cause they don’t need it. I hope that is clear.
Q: Simon, “I’ve heard it said it was only during World War I that it became certain that the US would end up as an English speaking country rather than German. I was incredulous, but my source was adamant and is generally reliable. Have you come across this view?”
A: No, I don’t think that is true. The chance of another language was originally in the 18th century, it could have become French speaking. And of course today there are large parts of America which are Spanish speaking. But I don’t think German was ever going to be a challenge to English.
“Churchill”, says a Zoom user, “Considered the fact the US was an English speaking country to be of utmost importance”, yes, “And in his history of the English speaking peoples, he devotes chapters to America. But then remember that he himself is half America.”
Sorry, Lorna, I don’t do portraits, maps, and chronologists. I speak, I don’t do it. I dunno what other people do. I simply don’t do that. I find it in intrusive for people looking at it. If there’s a map needed, I will give it. Otherwise everyone’s got atlas. I don’t give portraits because, well, I don’t see the point of getting portraits. You can always look them up. And as for chronologies, I don’t do them. But you will know that I do a synopsis each week on my blog.
Phil says, “The US’ transcontinental railway completed was not 1869, it’s not the first, Canada’s transcontinental was completed in.” I’m actually not sure, Phil, what you’ve said there. But the story of Canada is, whatever the dates, the story of Canada really follows that of America. There is some difference, however, in terms of how Canadians dealt with their indigenous people.
Simon said, “For a horrifying picture of the treatment of indigenous tribes in the twenties, see ‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ or read the book by David Graham.”
Q: Monty, “Did the introduction of alcohol play a part in subjugating indigenous population?”
A: Yes, it did. And we’re coming to that shortly when we come to Prohibition. Yes, it’s still a major issue with indigenous people’s USA and Canada. Yeah, you are absolutely right. It’s awful.
“Philippa Gregory’s book, ‘Virgin Earth’ concerns the issue of early British attitudes and actions towards the indigenous population.” Yes, absolutely true, Narmy.
“‘Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee’ is a great book about the killing of the Native Indians. I read it many years ago,” says Margaret. “But it left an indelible impression.” And on me too.
Michael, “Wounded Knee was revenge for the massacre of Custer’s army by the Sioux under the leadership of Sitting Bull.” Yes, it was, but it was, how shall I put it? It was an unnecessary massacre. But it was in their thinking at the time.
“General Sherman’s military rule burn, probably promoted to eradicate Native Americans ‘cause he’d already showed how ruthless he could be.” Shelly, one big tick yes.
Monty, “Somebody once asked a Heinz tech what he does. His answer, 'I sell sugar and salt.’” Oh dear, all the things were not meant to eat. Oh, that’s a great story, Monte, I love that.
Mark, “The building of the Panama Canal, beginning of the 21st century thrust US into worldwide economic and military dominance. At the beginning of the 20th century-” Sorry, Mark, I’m losing your thread here. “The building of the Panama Canal at beginning of the 20th century thrust the US into worldwide economic military dominance.” Yes, no I agree with that. It gives access to the east. Thanks for people. I’m sorry I don’t wish to be bloody minded about not doing pictures, but it really in an hour is really not a way of going forward. To me, that isn’t how I do it. No one is forced to listen. If you don’t, I can’t . You don’t want to listen, don’t. But I usually have, I always put up a synopsis and I try and keep some sort of book list going.
Joe, that’s very nice of you to say so. I always try and do that. And if I was actually face to face, I’d do it more.
“Henry Ford was openly anti-Semitic.” yes. Anti-Semitism, as we all know, is sadly has been always with us. “If Pearl Harbour did not occur, was America likely to join the war in Europe?” I don’t know. It’s a question of whether Roosevelt would’ve risked dividing Congress because he, as the American system, the president has to get the approval of Congress to declare war. And that would’ve been without Pearl Harbour, it might not have been possible, it might have divided America, and that would not have been a good thing. On the other hand, America could not have allowed Europe to become a Nazi fortress. Actually, it wouldn’t have. By the time America comes into war, ‘42, then we are likely to have seen Europe become not dominated by Hitler, but dominated by Stalin, which would’ve been equally unacceptable to Americans.
Q: Oh, “Will you take a few minutes, discuss European municipal corruption, please?”
A: Yes, Newcastle, David, is one good example. Another example is housing in Bristol in the 1960s. There are I’m afraid too many examples.
Oh, Liliana, you are hearing fine in Toronto. Yeah. I’m sorry. It really, if you can’t hear, it’s your end, not mine. If it was my end, everyone would be unable to hear. Thanks to people who said nice thing.
“There is an attempt,” says Jean, “To acknowledge the legacy of the indigenous tribe. My local university, Duke, and the art museum provide information acknowledging which tribes to occupy the land first. Many meetings and gatherings start with a similar statement.” That is really good. But I think really one of the things we can learn, and I don’t just, I mean all of us can learn across the world, is how indigenous people, not just indigenous Americans, but indigenous people everywhere have cared for the environment. It’s civilization based on the Latin word, , meaning a city. It’s urbanisation that has destroyed our environment, urbanisation, industrialization, and so on. And people who live close to the soil, looked after the soil, looked after the land. And we don’t.
“American involvement”, says Iona, “In foreign affairs started early in the 19th century, can be seen in Jefferson’s defeat of the Barbary pirates.” Yes, now that’s interesting, you are right. And the defeat of the Barbary Pirates is something that was involved with Britain. And America was very much involved in those sorts of actions in the early part of the 19th century. But it disappeared.
And Monroe stated as America grew and America ceased to look to Europe and Britain in particular, then Monroe was able to formulate his doctrine. “Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbour.” Yes, sorry, you are right.
Of course, Martin, if I said something that was different than that. The point being that after Pearl Harbour, Roosevelt had to get permission of Congress and he took a vote to go to war with Japan. And no one voted against in Congress, The vote in Congress war with Germany had one abstention. So that’s the story. Roosevelt was always very pro British and would’ve been involved earlier, but the politics of the situation and his concerns not to divide America prevented that. And so it’s impossible to say what might have happened.
Thanks very much. I think I’ve got through most of the questions and comments and thank everyone for listening. And next week, oh, next week, next week we go to war. We’ll have a word about the lead up to war in 1917. Then we go to war itself with so many American young men being sent to war and so many dying on the western front, but also dying before they even reached Europe because of the flu epidemic, which was very, very severe in America, and very severe in the American army for reasons that I will go into next week. So next week is the war, and then coming out of the war, the American presence at Versailles, and the establishment of the American idea and ideal of the League of Nations. So please join me next week for World War I and the aftermath of World War I. Thanks for listening and goodbye, goodnight from Britain.