>> up next on booktv h.w. brands, history professor at the university of texas, explores america's economic transformation between the civil war in the end of the 19th century. the author recalls the rise of capitalism led by businessman like andrew carnegie, john d. rockefeller and cornelius vanderbilt. mr. brands examines his book at the pritzker both are library in chicago for about 90 minutes. >> long after the return of veterans of the civil war often spoke of battle as a sort of proving ground for a man. a test of principle and character like other young men of his generation. teddy roosevelt heard of those veterans and he pitched for

conflict of his own. in 1898 he would receive with san juan hill in the spanish-american war. others would contrast the glorious myth with the harsh light of reality out west in the indian campaigns or in the philippine islands. so much as changed about the way america fought wars, and equally profound transformation had taken place in terms of why america fought the. out of this one nation become an imperial power and what role did titans of business played in that transformation? our guest and i will expose the intersection of military power and economic might come and take an in depth look at the creation of the american colossus. this program is coming to you from the pritzker military library in downtown chicago. we will be taking questions from our studio audience, and from those of you joining us on the internet at pritzker military library.org. h.w. brands is a refresh of history and government. is the the author of several

books including "the first american: the life and times of benjamin franklin," and traitor to his class. both of which, for which he was a finalist for a pulitzer prize for biography. he joins us tonight to discuss his new book, "american colossus: the triumph of capitalism 1865-1900". please join me in welcoming back to pritzker military library, h.w. brands. [applause] >> thank you. i'm delighted to be back to the foremost institution of its kind in the country, and it's quite an honor to speak your wants and a greater honor to speak your toys. i'm going to be talking about, well, roughly about a book that i published a couple of weeks ago called "american colossus" and it's about the gilded age period. the last third of the 19th century. the essential part of the story

is what i call the capitalist revolution in america. it is the emergence of america as an industrial power with the economy based on the principles of practices capital as. which on its face doesn't necessarily, doesn't lend itself to the kind of things that pritzker does. however, i'm going to contend that there is a central connection here are and this despite the fact that in this book is a fairly long book, 600 some pages, i spend very little time on military history per se. and this partly because the period that i discuss from 1865 to 1900, and if i stop in 1890, it's the longest stretch in american history without an organized war. we can leave aside the campaigns on the western frontier against the indians because they didn't

rise to the level of a congressionally declared war. but that pic of 1865-1898 is on the spirit in which america is at peace. it would seem there's not much here for the military transport aircraft someone who's interested in how america does to work how america fights the war and how all things turn out. but as i hope i'll make clear before the end of evening, there is a very close connection. the first thing i will say is that it was agreed that was bracketed by war. 1865 is chosen a course because it is the end of the civil war but i cheated in the book. the argument in the book really starts in about 1860, or 1861. i didn't put that in the subtitle of the book. the subtitle has beers 1865 to 1900 because i did want readers to think that's going to write a history of the civil war of which there have been many. although here i will say

parenthetically that i'm at work on a biography on ulysses s. grant, so i will get back to the civil war in greater detail. anyway, my story starts during the civil war which has a lot to do with how and why america industrialized. and my story is really with the war with spain in 1890, and the war in the philippines, the war with spain triggered. so it's an era that begins into our and ends in war, and so it's a little bit deceptive to think hard to argue that it's a peaceful period. more on this in just a moment. now i'm going to tell you what i have been talking to my students about, increasingly over the last several years. i've been teaching american history to initially to high school students, and into community colleges and a university. i've been doing this since the

late 1970s. so for a very long time, and the longer i do it the more i'm convinced that the questions of history are relatively huge and very profound. one of the most profound questions, the ones -- the one that relates to what i'm talking about tonight, and effective teaching a seminar on the subject at the university of texas this semester. i spoke to my students a couple nights ago. the question is why is their war? and this is a question that transcends america. although i tend to confine myself to the period of the wars of american history. i'm teaching at the university of texas right now called america's wars. and the question is how did america go to war? what you accomplish in war? how do the wars in and how does it all turn out? and the question i pose to my students, in this case i'm teaching undergrad, and students in my class ranged in age from

about 19 to 21 or 22. and so i ask a question. i posed a question to my students on the first day, why is their war? and i say that i'm asking them specifically because historically young people their age have been want to fight the war. i look at the young men in my class and maybe it will surprise you. maybe it will do know that when i teach this class, which is a class in america's military scum it's a seminar so i have 20 students. and typically i get maybe 14 or 15 young men, and five or six young women. so there's an over representation of young men. i look at the young men in particular and in this class, in this version, as i have in years past i have a number of either active duty or recently active military men.

i've actually had a couple of military women. but ask the question, i say, why do you go to war? i pointed them, why do you go to war? historically has been the case that people of my age, barack obama is the first president that i am older than, so it's roughly people my age who make the decision to send people their age to war. and i asked them, so why do you do it? and i pose some answers and i said okay, these are some possible answers. i don't pretend that there is a single answer by any year in this regard i remind them that history and human affairs are not like us. were asked is if you want to reduce the number of answers. you want to reduce the number of causes. in history, the more answer you can give a more complete your explanation is. because if there is an army of

about 10,000 or 10 they are 12 in a 60 million as the wasn't one or two, they're almost as many reasons why you go to war. one of the possibilities i presented to them is that maybe we choose, that is weak, i'm calling myself the generation decision-maker, we are very clever at pulling the wool over the eyes of these young and gullible generations. and we give them to do our dirty work. so we said we are going to war and you guys go off to work. i say that's a possibility. another possibility is we choose them because they are young and strong. if you have to choose your warriors, you choose young people because they can do it better, a 20 year olds in my class can fight better than icann. so maybe that's the reason. and then there are other reasons. having to do with, well, i was

talking to some people in the reception before we came in about, have any of you been to the museum of the pacific war in fredericksburg texas? if you get into texas you should go. that's what a great military museums in the country and is hiding out there in in fredericksburg primarily because the admiral was from fredericksburg. but there's a symposium their every september, and the symposium is attended by academics like me. and also by world war ii veterans. i say this because it's very clear in speaking to the world war ii veterans, and that we are 60 years out from world war ii, that this was for very many of us the most important experience in their lives. this was in many ways the things that defined their lives. wing and was giving the introduction, he pointed out that theodore roosevelt felt this way. theodore roosevelt felt he had

missed something by being too young for the civil war. and as one of the contributors to theodore roosevelt enthusiasm, and that's not putting it too strongly, enthusiasm for war in 1890s. it was said by some of roosevelt's friends that he was looking for a war. he didn't care who the enemy was. he was looking for any war, and the point was to define himself. and i say this with the greatest respect, because for people who participate in war there is probably never a time when they do anything quite so grand in a very moral way. in their life. because when we send people to war, we ask them to die, not for family members, but for people they don't even know, a rather nebulous ideals. and they do.

you really kind of, you can hard find human experience that brings out that kind of selflessness, that kind of courage, that kind of greatest like war. so it's no wonder that people who didn't participate in war felt as though they had missed something. i point out to my students that there is a generational kind of regularity to america's wars. they don't occur every five years and they don't occur just haphazard. the revolution of war, roughly a generation passes before the war of 1812 and then another generation before the war. and the civil war, it's exactly -- it's not a foreign war. it's a war among americans. but in a generation, fairly long generation passes before the war of 1898. and in the first world war, the second world war. things come faster after the second world war. but anyway, so, i pose these

questions to my students. it's interesting, and they have various responses. i pose the question in particular to the young men in the group because i tell them and they like us that historically they are the ones who go into the fighting. but then i point to the young woman in the class and i say that, well, if you think there's a book to be let off of your not getting off the hook because one of the reasons young men go off to fight is that young women encourages them to do so. and there are innumerable cases of young men who are trying to decide should a list or not? and they see the young women of the community getting all dreamy eyed when they see the other soldiers in uniform, and they realize that if they don't serve they will be branded as a coward for ever after. we will come back to theodore roosevelt. you know why theodore roosevelt -- i cannot think of another

president in american history who really valued war, the we theodore roosevelt it. i have to be careful because all of the stuff that theodore roosevelt says about war, he gives a famous speech in 1897 in which he says that the greatest triumph of peace hailed beside the triumphs of war, that war is the task of an individual's character of the nation's soul. roosevelt is one of those rare men in american history who glorifies war. most other leaders in american history, take the point of view that war is sometimes necessary, but it's not something that we should really praise. rosewell goes beyond that necessary step and says its praiseworthy. and you know why theodore

roosevelt thought this way? it was both generational, also very personal. theodore roosevelt idolized his father. theodore roosevelt's father's name was theodore rosso. senior was handsome, wealthy, educated, he was the greatest man i have ever known, young theodore roosevelt said. but there was one thing, one flaw in his father. and do you know what that flaw was? his father had not served in the military during the civil war. during the nation's crisis, when other people his age, other people of his health were going off to fight. the senior theodore roosevelt did not fight. now, it was probably a decision that was the best for the country. theodore roosevelt senior became what was called an allotment.

and during the civil war he went around to the unions can't to persuade the union soldiers to a lot a portion of their pay to the support of their wives, children and family back home. there was nothing that was required. theodore roosevelt senior did more for his country in that position than if he had joined the military. and taken a position on some general step which is probably what he would have done. however, this did not suit the younger theodore roosevelt. he grew up reading stories of valor and gallantry in the civil war. and he spent the rest of his youth and his young adulthood hearing the war stories of other adults, other adult men, and

hearing his contemporary stock about what heroic actions their fathers had taken. and his younger sister said that, although theodore roosevelt himself would never say this, that the younger theodore felt that this was the one thing that kept his father from being the perfect man. and in some way -- i should point out that the elder theodore roosevelt died when the younger theodore roosevelt went to college. so the younger theodore roosevelt only had this perspective on his father, perspective of, what should i say? a soldier age young man. he didn't grow to adulthood with his father when he to talk about this and realize that what his father had done was really the right thing. in fact, theodore roosevelt, jr. billy somehow his father failed, and he was going to correct this failure. and so, at the first opportunity as his sister said, this was the

origin of the younger theodore with a military. this is part of my story when i write about this era of the gilded age. but a larger part of the story is the emergence of modern american. modern in an economic sense. modern in a political sense. modern and a diplomatic sense, and modern in a military sense. i told you some of the discussions that i have with my students. i'll tell you something else. i tried to get my students to boil down the lessons of history and to manageable size. and so i pass seriously -- have to say explain to my students what i call brands laws of history. and when the subject turns to foreign policy, and military policy, i say brands first law

of history is a volunteer in the reason i put it in this form to my students is that i tell my students i don't want you to take note that i want you to listen and think. i wanted remember the stories. and when there is something i want you to write and i will do this. so i tell them, okay, this is brands first law of history, right again. and rancid first law of history is soon or later every country gets to foreign policy they can afford. and i tell them this by way of explanation to how is it that the united states during the 19th century, during the 18th century, during the 19th century, waged wars when only this generational frequency, and the wars that waged were not particularly large wars. the revolutionary war was, well, it became this large war but

that the united states had a small part in the fight to the work 1812 was almost a frontier war. the war with mexico, again, the war on the frontier. the civil war again is the big exception to this will put its exceptional in a lot of ways. but then the war with spain in 1898, the next war, this is, well, it begins as a skirmish in the caribbean. now, it winds up as a war that stretches all the way across the pacific and that is part of a surprise. however, once you get to 20 century, the united states engages in the greatest wars in human history, and after the second world war, the wars, quite frequently. now, the argument that a naked my students, and this comes from what i've have service recalling brands' for sluggish and that is

nations get the foreign policy they can afford. sooner or later is critical, because by 1900, by 19 at the end of my grade the period of the the, the united states is the most powerful country in the world economically. but american foreign policy remains relatively on ambitious. at least compared to the foreign policies of the other great powers. so britain's foreign policy in 1900 is far more global, far more ambitious than that of the united states. even japan's foreign policy of the united states with stronger economically than any of those countries. but the united states will still americans, we're still thinking in terms of a 19th century mindset. where the united states was surrounded -- will come as a french diplomatic wants it, it is america's great good fortune to be surrounded on the north by

canada, a relatively weak power. on the south by mexico, another week about. on the east by fish come on the west by fish. so america could emerge, americans could come to maturity relatively unconcerned with what was happening in the rest of the world. in contrast to come other countries that were trying to emerge about this time, italy. italy was unified in the 19th century. germany was unified in the 19th century and they had powerful enemies right next door. so america didn't get very ambitious foreign policy, didn't assert itself in terms of foreign policy until the first time during the first world war, but then the u.s. backed off after that. as of 1919 in 1920 when the senate voted twice on the treaty of versailles and rejected the treaty of versailles, and don't 19, with google all the way up to 1941. americans try to stay out of

world affairs, but from 1941, from 1941 intel now, americans have never wavered from that belief that almost anything can happen, almost anywhere around the world, it's something to united states needs to pay attention to and and mit page on america's national security. back to the late 19th century. the first workout of the civil war occurs at a time when the train is still relatively on industrialized, but there is an impetus that the civil war is to the industrial process. in fact, one of the arguments that are making the book and elsewhere is that there is a kind of synergy between war and industrialization to the only thing that goes beyond industrialization, between war and the evolution of the american economy. now, i'm not contending that

economic imperatives drive more. not at all. that's one of the side effects, but there is this connection that works both ways. war causes the economy to accelerate to develop in ways in which it wouldn't otherwise. and the more powerful economy makes it possible, even makes it desire of all almost inevitable that the united states will engage in a more ambitious or policy up to and including more. so the civil war stars at the leading edge of this, and the key to the contribution of the civil war can lead to initial elation is partly directed, partly indirect. start with the indirect. the civil war begins after the election of abraham lincoln. abraham lincoln is elected in 1860. south carolina secedes before lincoln gets inaugurated. several southern states follow. like it has to decide what to do. he decides to spend the federal

fortress, south carolina, fort sumter, tries, the civil war is on. and that is that. there's more of course, but a side effect of that which is absolutely critical for the development of the american industrial economy is when the south seceded. the democratic party essentially abdicated its role in national policy. leaving the federal government, for the first time in the complete control of a party that is overtly friendly to business development. so there was a program of business development but there was never control of the federal government. as the republicans had during the years of the civil war in early reconstruction. and so the republicans who of course are remembered in history as the party of anti-slavery were also the party of

pro-business. and republicans, because they had the democratic opposition, they very quickly put in their program of federal aid to business. and the federal aid to various form. it took, for example, an increase in the federal terrace to protect american manufacturing. the creation of a national banking system. for the first time a national currency. it includes such measures as the building of a trans-got -- transcontinental railroad which you might think simply a matter of economic development or maybe it was logrolling with the california legislature. but do you know why the transpacific, the pacific rim what was authorized when it was authorized? it was a war measure and it was a war measure to keep california in the union. california and california's gold were strongly pro-southern. and there was strong sentiment

in california when the south seceded that california should secede as well. not to join the confederacy, but to become an independent republic. because in the ways when it took, well, it took a month to get to california by the shortest route, steamship from the east coast to panama, donkey ride or eventually a railroad across panama and another steamship up to san francisco, that was the shortest route. if you walked across north america it took anywhere from four to five months. if you went around south america it could take as much as six months or under the circumstances the connection between california and the rest of the country seemed continuous at best. lincoln, in order to prevent california, leaving the union and taking its gold with it, and this gold was essential to maintaining the liquidity of the union government during the civil war, something the confederacy never maintained,

central to keeping california with the promise of a railroad. wants -- once they learn they're going to be able to get back to the rest of the country in four days rather than four weeks or four months, then all thoughts of seceded vanished overnight. but the result of this, and i should point out something usher many of you know, that's a trans-come in a railroad would not have been built without strong federal underwriting. they are seven wasn't the private market. i might add here that -- is there any high-speed rail project that is rejected for illinois? okay. well, california's trying to build a high-speed rail project to connect san francisco and los angeles. and it's not going to happen without a huge infusion of government money. why not? because the market doesn't exist for it. well, there would have been a transcontinental railroad

without a huge infusion of federal money either because the market didn't exist. but the fed built. and what happened was the first transcoder railroad was followed by four others. so the last one was the only one built with private. the other was all government money. these created a national market, a single market in which american manufacturers, each at a steel mill in pittsburgh, if you're a shoe factory in connecticut, if you process tobacco in north carolina, you could really factory big enough to be the entire national market because all of a sudden the cost of transport have fallen dramatically. the u.s. constitution forbids states from establishing political barriers to trade across state lines. the national rail eliminating the geographic and economic barriers to trade. so if there's a single secret of

america's emerging economic, if there's a single secret, it was the largest single national market on a. french manufacturers could produce in the fresh market but they had to deal with terrorists to shipping to italy or france or britain. americans didn't have to do this. so the republican agenda during the civil war laid the basis for the emergence of modern american capitalists are the civil war directly contributed to this by, one of the things that wars are, is to use the terminology of modern times, their very large federal sting as packages. and during war the federal government spends money like there's no tomorrow. on the believe that if we lose the war there will be no tomorrow for the government. and here i will just digress briefly in a forward direction and explain, point out that the

united states didn't get out of the great depression until 1940 and 1941. and everybody knows that it was world war ii that pulled the united states out of the great depression. but whatever he knows is not exactly correct. what pulled the united states out of the great depression was not all the soldiers who died and were wounded during world war ii, and it's not all of the to and fro of the military campaign and the planet. what was it that pull the economy out of the depression? it was the federal spending for war. world war ii was among other things a huge federal stimulus package. anyway, so, the civil war got american industrialization, got what i call in the book the capitalist revolution in america under way. the revolution picked up speed

on its own, relatively -- well, it continued to have a favorable course of government. it's fear was no of -- where there was no republican party today, often presents itself as the party of business and opposition to larger government. the republican party in the days of abraham lincoln and his early successes was the party of business, but it was the party in favor of government intervention. the government intervention precise on behalf of business. and buried from 1865-1900 with large a republican air. in fact, from 1860-1932 it was almost republicans as far as the eye could see. republicans certainly dominate the presidency, and the great depression, franklin roosevelt

change that and ushered in an age when democrats could become competitive again. so the civil war started things off. the spanish-american war closes this period, and the spanish-american war is the first of what i would call -- welcome is the first kind of war that would come to characterize american military history in the 20th century. and i will call it an elective war, war that was not by any force force upon the united states. in a basic way a very basic way, every war is an elective war. because every war involves at least two sides and they both have to decide to fight. now it's true that sometimes war is for someone country more than other wars might be forced on. world war ii was in very many respects forced upon the united states by the japanese at pearl

harbor. except if you back it up a bit, the japanese attacked the united states and pearl harbor because a decision made by franklin roosevelt to oppose japanese expansion in east asia. now, if the japanese tried to expand into asia half a century earlier, it would not have occurred to an american president to try to oppose that. east asia, that's not our bailiwick. that's not our concern, but franklin roosevelt decided that this was that this was a danger to american security. the spanish-american war, the first of america's elective war that elective incense that there was no compelling demand on the part of american people to go to war. there wasn't a sense that -- we could talk about the u.s. name was blown up. except the reason the main was there is william mckinney decide to intervene diplomatically in a war between

spain and its cuban colonies. so what was it that brought on the war with spain? one contributor was that there was a generation of young men who had grown up during these war stories and knew that they would never be heroes like their fathers and grandfathers were heroes. unless they went to war. theodore roosevelt epitomize something that felt by a whole lot of people. that is, and it's not just in that day but even today. that there is no test of courage, there is no test of manhood, there is no test of patriotism like service in the military. and theodore roosevelt had this itch that had to be scratched. theodore roosevelt would have left his wife's deathbed for the opportunity to go to work. in fact, he nearly did.

his wife was recovering from a very severe infection and she could easily have turned for the worse. they had six children, and if theodore roosevelt had died in battle there was no pension. edith would've had to figure out to raise the kids on her own. theodore roosevelt even more than his father left a very important position in washington. he was assistant secretary of the navy, and in those days the navy department was, sorry during peacetime, the more important of the two military departments. the war department geared up during wartime but the united states said soldiers home between wars. and the assistant secretary of the navy, was in some ways more important than the secretary of the navy because that was a political important and theodore roosevelt was the one who did the heavy lifting. he had to take care of the spanish fleet in the philippines should war break out. theodore roosevelt quit that job over the objection of all of his

friends, and anybody who knew anything about the way washington operated, they told him, you're absolutely crazy. we need you more than ever in washington. you're the one who knows how the navy works. and why are you doing this? why are you join a volunteer regiment? and the only answer he could say was, that i have spent 30 years of my life say that war is the test of a man's courage, a man's soul. and if i don't step up, well, i will never know if i had passed the test. so theodore roosevelt went off and made himself a hero. in doing so, the battle of san juan hill, he definitely did a lesser service to his country than if he'd stayed in washington because he would have -- it more responsibility. he would have done more for the good of the country, more for the war effort if it stayed

where he was. but he wouldn't have had the psychological, emotional the emotional satisfaction of testing himself or in interestingly with roosevelt, he was not at all in favor of the military as the military. he advised his sons don't go into the military as a career. you are more talented than that, for heavens sake. when he thought in one battle, one important battle, the battle of san juan hill, and he ever after called it his crowded hour. and is crowded our was hardly more than an hour. heat definitely behaved with gallantry, and the casualties in his regiment were appallingly high. and he could have been killed several times during the course of that hour. but once he had demonstrated to himself more than anybody else that he could stand up to enemy fire, that was enough. in fact, one of the striking things about theodore roosevelt is all of his warmongering, all of his rhetoric takes place

before the spanish-american war. once he shows himself i can do this, after he became president, theodore roosevelt was almost a pacifist. you know what theodore roosevelt principle, what shall i say, his principal recognition to international recognition of roosevelt's presidency was during his time? the nobel peace prize. now, there's something i don't know much but roosevelt's history and they link it with the awarded the nobel peace prize with henry kissinger and say those scandinavians have a real sense of humor. but anyway, so one of the reasons roosevelt went to war was to scratch this historical psychological itch. there were other elements. there was the feeling on the part of some americans that the country, the economy had outgrown its consumer base. for the first time in american history by the 1890s,

america's economy could produce more than american consumers needed to consume. in an agrarian age when farming is the basic economy, you don't have depression because people, their needs are greater than their productive capacity. but when you emerge in the age of industrialization of economic modernization, it's the opposite at the production capacity is greater than the consumptive needs. the first series in social depression in american history takes place in the 1890s. and americans look at this and say boy, this is something new. because now have this problem where we can produce more than we can consume. so what are we going to do? we need to find more markets. and this alerted americans to the needs to look abroad for markets, and this is what cause some people to thwart roosevelt

and henry cabot. some for, in the days when navy moved by the wind, they didn't need to have foreign fueling depots. if you move by solar power, which is what wind is, you just wait for the wind to blow. after you switch to steam power, you've got to the fuel, you've got to have the coal. america needed calling stations. i'm running out of time but i will close by saying that the principle reason if you ask me as to why it was a war in 1898, for the first time americans could afford it. the country was rich enough that it could go to war without accounting the cost. and i will close with this thought, the 20th century,

from 1898-2008, we will call it the long 20th century, was an era when america could go to war and did go to war without accounting for costs ahead of them. there was no instance, from any of the wars america font, when somebody said the country security is threatened, we need to react to the north korean attack on south korea, we need to go into vietnam, whatever. a cost benefit analysis never in any serious way receiving any of those wars. why? because the country was rich. the united states could afford to go to war. we could have guns and butter, both. why did i say up until 2008? because i am of the strong opinion, i'm just a history. i look backward rather than forward, but i'm of the strong

opinion that the united states has outrun at least for the foreseeable future its era of elective wars. i cannot believe that the united states would choose to go to war, welcome as the united states did with spain in 1894. without a lot of people saying wait a minute, we can't afford it. do you know what that's going to do to the deficit? so the united states may have reverted now, recently sent a financial meltdown of 2008, to the way the country was before the very that i talk about. it wasn't that rich, and war like any other kind of national activity, something that cost money. and when the money gets tight, some people think strong second thoughts about were. i will stop there. i have spoken longer than i intended to but now we can do questions, right? [applause]

>> fascinating. my question is regarding the spanish-american war. i can see why with my desire to take cuba and puerto rico from strategic and even economic interests, but what was the interest in the philippines other than perhaps competing with the french and the germans and the british in terms of some sort of worldwide manifest destiny? >> as a matter fact that was the principal reason for considering the philippines fair game. it's interesting that the war began over spanish atrocities in cuba, and spain's violation of the human rights of the cuban nationalists. it was also a feeling that the time had come to eject european powers from the western hemisphere. american president, american secretary of state's have been talking in this vein since 1823 when john quincy adams wrote and james monroe announced the monroe doctrine, western

hemisphere is america's failure. and so by 1898 people like theodore roosevelt, henry cabot lodge, henry woods contended we need to get the europeans out of the western hemisphere. but interestingly enough, it was always spoken by those people who said we have to keep the spanish out that this is not to make you a part of an american empire. this is for the good of the cuban people, not primarily for the good of the united states. despite what is something that occurs in every word that the united states goes to. there is an aspect of altruism in the wars, and there's also an aspect of self interest. so many americans decided that we need to go to war against spain to say the suffering of cuban people. and that was a strong aspect of it. and those folks who had broader, we'll call them or in more imperialistic design, even though you could hardly find an american who had accepted the

label and realism because imperialism reached at what the british were doing to the american back in 1870. but policies had been set. almost none of us that we want to enact facilities. so one of these interesting ironies of this is that when i will call it the war of party, included democrats as well as republicans, when the war party got its way and william mckinley asked the congress in 1898, for declaration of war against spain, the opponents or at least the skeptics of war said all right, we will give you your war, but we are going to insist that you put your money where your mouth was, that you don't want to in acts do. so written into the war appropriations bill was a teller a minute spot about henry cover of colorado, which said that it is states will not annex cuba as a consequence of this war.

and some of those entry lists realized that they had been poised and they were just, i guess, okay, we've got to do. but that causes them to consider what else the united states might take because after all if we're going to go to the trouble of finding this would ought to be something in it for the united states. theodore roosevelt have been looking at the philippines, and a lot of those people have been worrying that the wouldn't be a market for american production said, they look at china. the elder of the china market, the term is often used, the china market, began in 1890s but it persisted until after, right up until the time china what communism in 1949. there was this idea that china -- do you know how many hundreds of megs of people live in china? if we can simply get the average

chinese -- that was the kind of thinking. the philippines was the jumping off point for the china market. but there was one last thing and it had to do with i will call it national image or national self-respect. this was an era when the european powers were dividing up the globe but this was the heir of the so-called scramble for africa. in 1880 africa was largely uncalled nice. by 1900 there was hardly a square foot outside ethiopia that wasn't a colony are protected of the europeans. and americans like theodore roosevelt who, theodore roosevelt was sort of a closet anglophile. if the british were doing something, the americans ought to consider. roosevelt, a lot of people thought like him, we've got to do something like it because if we don't we lose the opportunity. they looked around and one of the few places that was not taken was the philippines. of course, the philippines was taken by staying. americans thought it was a war

about cuba. but no, the war decorations that if they were against spain. so roosevelt sent the american fleet, the asiatic fleet which was based in hong kong, they had standing orders to go to manila and sink the spanish flea. -- the spanish fleet. those ships that sail from the philippines and show up in cuba so we might as well sync them while begin. but it had a side effect of leaving the philippines in the possession of the united states. it's very interesting to consider, the diplomatic reasoning, the political reasoning that went into the decision to keep the philippines at the end of the war. it's one thing to occupy the philippines during the war but then what will we do with them if? should we give them back to spain? should make it into another power? should we give himself governments?

so the only thing as we mckinley said is to take them and as he went on, we will lift them up and christianize them. make them the best that they can be. this is self-serving. when you hear in it in mckinley's own words, but the striking thing is that he was probably absolutely right in this sense that the best thing for the philippines, the best thing for the philippines was exactly what happened. because if the philippines had been given back to spain, spain couldn't hold them. what would've happened is that another imperial power would have taken the philippines. and as a colonial power goes, the united states is a pretty, pretty responsible colonial power. the likely country would have been one or two. either germany or japan. and the record of the colonies

of those countries is not something anybody wanted to repeat. in fact, to carry the story farther, the united states decided to give the philippines its independence in the 1930s. at which point the lives of the philippines and wait a minute, not so fast. we kind of like it here. no, we had enough. you guys are on your own. anyway, next question. >> you describe the era from the end of the civil war through 1932 s. basically the air of republicans dominant. but focusing on the middle of this period, 1865 to 98, i was looking at the history of control of the house of representatives. i think there's a joke people talk about how 1994 all over again. and some ardent souls thought it might be and 1894 all over again. it wasn't that good but it was still fun.

anyways, 94 is a turning point because from 1874-1894, the democrats almost an choose to dominate the house the republicans get a narrow majority a few times. how does that tie in here, into the pro-business -- the sale is mostly controlled by the republicans, but the democrat controlled house, how does that tie into, the government has the controlled government? >> good question. as you point out that democrats control the house of representatives during a financial -- a substantial portion. and that is certainly true enough that the republicans tended to control the senate, and they dominate the presidency. there were only two democratic presidents between 1860-1932.

grover cleveland was elected to separate times and woodrow wilson who was elected twice consecutively. but the restaurant republican presidents. so at a national level, of course the president and vice president, that gave the republicans overwhelming control of a point much to the supreme court. and the supreme court established from the 1870s, really until roosevelt tried to tax the supreme court in 1937. it is, republicans in particular a conservative wing of the republican party. the ability to interpret laws in a way that turn out to favor business. so that's as large part. the second part of the answer is that the democrats, the strongest wing of the democratic party during this period was southern democrats. and these are the ones who tend to elect all those other representatives, southern

senators as well. and the southern democracy, it was the most conservative wing of the democratic party. and so, for example, after franklin roosevelt was elected in the 1930s he had to fight back to revolt from within his own party. and really racing forward, if you want to know why the country has become so polarized in a partisan sense and you want to know what bipartisanship is dead and it's not coming back in the foreseeable future, it's not that people are any more mean-spirited than the used to be. it's that the two parties have sifted themselves ideologically. until the 1960s, both parties have both liberals and conservatives. the democratic party at all those southern conservatives. and as result of that the republican party have a whole bunch of northeastern liberals. what happened to? and 1960s, lyndon johnson, the first southern president really,

before the civil war, he only came in the side door, we could get woodrow wilson as a partial exception. he was born in the south but he spent his entire adult life up north. anyhow, lyndon johnson attacks himself to the civil rights and that gave permission to all of those southern conservative democrats to bolt the party. and they did over the course of the next 20 years. and as they did, the center of gravity of the republican party moved somewhere in about iowa to somewhere in about texas. and the reelected governor of texas, rick perry certain hopes it somewhere around texas. anyway, with a result of that, now there are not any liberals left in the republican party. and really there are no conservatives left in the democratic party. when lyndon johnson was crafting medicare in various aspects of civil rights he could count on liberal republicans crossing the

aisle to join with liberal democrats. but the two parties have become ideologically, philosophically distinct. there is no incentive for any republicans these days to join forces with a liberal president or a liberal democrat. the partisan incentives are pointing in the wrong direction. and we have time for one more is that if? thank you very much. [applause] >> our thanks for h.w. brands for joining us. the book is "american colossus: the triumph of capitalism 1865-1900". you can learn more about the library, download the audio podcast. for all the staff at pritzker go to chicago in chicago, thanks for joining us.

we have time for more questions. we have one in the back. >> very interesting talk. you were just mentioning lyndon johnson. i always kind of had a theory, one of the reasons we got into vietnam is because we could. we were prepared in those days to fight two-and-a-half force at the same time. and, you know, lbj never had to raise the reserves during the war. i guess what over half a million troops over there. then we went on and we put in a half million in the first iraq war, et cetera. so maybe we're not able to manage that now. we had a speaker here, james bradley who wrote the imperial cruise. and he made the point that theodore roosevelt had a low regard for china.

later fdr had a high regard, five major powers are going to be after the war, but he had a high regard for japan, and even had a secret treaty with japan not approved by the senate, into negotiations and there was a secret treaty. do you know anything about that? >> i'm not sure exactly what secret for you are referring to. there were a couple of executive agreements that were called the gentlemen's agreement. i should just add here that in the united states there is no such thing as a secret treaty. it's not a treaty unless the senate ratifies it. they are are the kinds of agreements, and one of the things that roosevelt had, this perhaps can resonate with issues of today, americans and roosevelt era were seriously

concerned, a lot of americans were seriously concerned about japanese immigration to the united states. and roosevelt wanted to appease those critics of japanese immigration. they have certain political leverage and he felt he had to deal with them. for the united states government, however, to formally barred japanese immigration would have been seen as a slap in the face of japan. chinese immigration, more precisely, the immigration of chinese laborers, students and businesses can still come, but chinese laborers had been barred to come to a state since 1882. and the japanese, were conspicuously distancing themselves from china. china was on a downward trajectory your this in the thinking of japan and most westerners as well. japan was on an upward