unilateral action as president to aid particularly britain, who seemed very hard pressed to survive against the germans. does anybody know what he did unilaterally? [ inaudible ] >> that would be after the election. yeah? >> he gave them submarines. i believe. >> what? >> he gave them submarines. >> the destroyers, exactly. they had submarines and they were shipping. he gave them destroyers in return for some bases that great britain had in the caribbean. he also persuaded congress to begin a rearmament program, to begin rebuilding america's defenses, and luckily did not have great opposition from wendell willkie, who did not oppose these measures or the

peacetime draft that roosevelt helped initiate and get through congress as well. but ultimately, as the campaign progressed, willkie did make an attack on the president. he said the president is plotting and planning to send america into war. in other words, willkie wasn't an isolationist, but, of course, he was opposed to america getting involved in the war. as he saw the election slipping away from him, he did make the argument that you can't vote for roosevelt or you'll get into war. anyone know how roosevelt responded? >> didn't he pretty much promise that he wouldn't send anybody to war? >> he absolutely promised, we're not going to get involved in the war. i'm not going to send american boys to die in an overseas war, establishing, not for the first time, but further ratifying a fundamental premise that every time it's 100% guaranteed that a

president says i'm not getting involved in a war during a campaign, what does he do immediately after? gets us involved in a war. woodrow wilson, world war i. franklin roosevelt, world war ii. lyndon johnson, the vietnam war. george w. bush, the wars in afghanistan and iraq. you name it, every president who's disclaimed any desire to get america involved in a war somehow manages immediately or shortly after the presidency to do just that, to get america involved in the war. just switch here for one moment. do we have the slide up? i don't know why i'm getting that thing. it doesn't matter. willkie gave roosevelt a bit of a run for his money doing obviously far better than hoover or landon. still, roosevelt wins by 12 points. wins pretty easily in the

electoral college. holds the entire south, as he would. every single southern state in all of roosevelt's four elections usually by majorities of 60% or more. willkie's strength is confined to the plain state area and the midwest, primarily. it's a pretty thumping victory for roosevelt. certainly not a ratification of the idea that america should get involved in the war but a ratification of this idea that roosevelt pushes right at the beginning of his third term in office. by the way, of course, the election of 1940 shatters what? the three-term tradition. why was roosevelt able to shatter the three-term tradition and win a third term? something no one else had ever done.

>> i guess he broke the two-term tradition primarily because of his incredible -- >> i'm sorry. i said three term. i meant two term. >> because of his incredible cris mar and popularity. >> that's part of it. but there's something more fundamental operating here. >> a desire not to change in the middle of a war. >> exactly. we're not in the war, but the war is going on. the world is in flames. there's great peril. had there not been a war, the polls show the nation probably would have voted republican in 1940, and, again, the course of history would have shifted. but fdr was able to break the two-term tradition of george washington for the first time because of the war crisis and because of people's confidence that he was the most able leader to take us through war. now, this is what someone mentioned. this is what he did immediately after the war. it was of fundamental

importance. what was this, and why was it so important? >> he basically kind of gave the british, like, ammunition chips. >> absolutely. >> didn't he pay them back later, but it was to help them out, and it kind of established our alliance in the war. >> very good. anybody want to expand on that? >> the british were running out of money. they could no longer afford to buy armaments and ammunition from the united states, so he extended them a credit basically and let them get it for free. >> up until that time, the policy was called cash and carry. you can buy arms from the united states, other supplies. but you had to pay for them. you couldn't get loans. had to pay for them in cash and take them out in your own chips. roosevelt knew, he said that wouldn't work. shipping was scarce on the part of britain. they were in a fight for their lives. they're running out of money. again, very narrowly, although not as narrowly as the repeal of the neutrality laws, and you can

see the kind of opposition it had, he said we're going to make the united states the arsenal of democracy. basically, look, we can have three choices. we can let hitler rule the world, and that's not acceptable. we can get involved in the war, and that's not acceptable. or we can become -- what did he call it? he had a name for this. the arsenal of democracy. we don't have to send our troops. we don't have to send american boys to be killed overseas. we can just send tanks and planes and boots and uniforms, the things that britain and ultimately the soviet union because a lot went to the soviet union, a huge amount of money, $50 billion, enormous amount for those days. and did we expect that money to be paid back? no, of course not. it was called lend lease, but it was in effect the first mass of american foreign aid program.it roosevelt had to steer it

through again a lot of opposition. and there's no question that the lend-lease program was of fundamental importance for helping britain and later russia resist nazi and fascist aggression. one of the great paradoxes though of the world war ii period is roosevelt and most americans always believed the greatest threat to america was not from japan but from hitler and in europe. after all, you know, american civilization was closestizion. you know, japan might threaten china or, you know, indochina or korea, but less important and vital to the u.s. than france and britain and places like that. so it was also thought hitler was more ruthless and more powerful.

so always the united states was focused on the war in europe, and increasingly as 1941 wears on, the first year of roosevelt's third term, united states becomes somewhat involved in the war, at least in the atlantic, trying to protect shipping going to britain. and was pretty much uninvolved with events in the far east, except it did something important with respect to japan, and what was that, that antagonized the japanese a lot. >> the oil embargo. >> the oil embargo, exactly. embargoes oil and scrap metal and other materials that the japanese thought were essential. how much? >> one minute. >> all right. i'm obviously not going to get to pearl harbor now. i'm just going to conclude, and next time we'll -- you know, we'll finish world war ii and sum up what that meant for america, the presidency and the world. i'll just conclude by saying

that for many commentators, the war came to america through the back door of the attack on pearl harbor, which began a never-ending controversy over what? >> did roosevelt know it was going to happen? did he let it happen? >> did roosevelt really want to get in the war? the only way we'd get in the war is if our soil were attacked, and maybe he talley knew that they were planning to attack the american base at pearl harbor and let it happen in order to get us involved in the war. most historians do not believe that, but there is no question that the precipitating event for american involvement in the war was the first major attack on american soil at pearl harbor since the war of 1812. we'll pick up pearl harbor and america's actual involvement in the war next time.

>> thanks, mark. i'm pleased to be here again today representing the texas state historical association as a sponsor of this second annual save texas history symposium, and i'm again honored to have this opportunity to introduce land commissioner jerry patterson, the person ultimately responsible for making this program happen. it's always a pleasure to be among people who understand the importance and the need to save texas history. a year ago before this meeting, my wife tara and i were eating din are the night before, and someone asked us what we were

doing in town, and we said we're here for the save texas history symposi symposium. they said, well, why does texas history need saving, and so many things flooded through my head at that point that i didn't really know how to answer, and all i could think about was how all of us work, the museums, the archives, the libraries, the land office, the texas historical commission, and we fight for funds to preserve the materials to support scholarship, to make them accessible, to publish them and then to bring the fruits of that scholarship to the classroom through all the teachers in the education work that we do. so, i didn't real very a very good answer for the person at the dipper table, but i just said trust me, it does, you know. but since then, i've thought that this question could represent how well we are doing at our jobs. but it also reflects how much work we have to do in the way of making the importance of our work apparent and our needs widely known.

that is why this aptly named event is so important. and i want to thank the general land office and jerry patterson for instituting it. commissioner patterson is a well-known figure in texas, and much of his biography has not changed in the past year, though there have been some significant editions. he's served as state senator, and he was elected as the 26th he was re-elected in 2006 and elected to a third term in 2008. born in houston, commissioner patterson graduated from texas a & m in 1969 and received his commission in the united states marine corps. in 1972, he volunteered for duty in vietnam and was later designated as a naval flight officer. he served in marine fighter squadrons until his retirement from the marine corps reserve as a lieutenant colonel in 1993.

his love of history likely derives at least in part from the fact that five consecutive generations of his family have served our nation in time of war. commissioner patterson demonstrates not only his love of history but also his courage in everything he does. both attributes will be much needed as he and the general land office take on new challenges in the future. especially efforts to preserve the greatest texas history shrine of all, the alamo. i can't think of a more appropriate person or organization to take on this charge. please join me in welcoming and thanking a great friend of texas history, land commissioner jerry patterson. [ applause ] >> welcome to our symposium. i tell people at every

opportunity when they say, what do you do or what's a land commissioner do or i can't vote for you because i'm not in your precinct and by the way would you fix that road up there, and i say, you know, if you live in texas you're in my precinct. i say i have the greatest gig in texas government, and i really do. it's an opportunity to look good through no effort of your own. i mean, how can you do any better than that? i have people that work for me in archives and records, and you know mark and others that are here who make even me look good. but it's a great opportunity. i mean, i'm a big history buff, and i'm not a historian. i'm a history buff. i have a history degree. that doesn't mean i have anything other than an interest in history, but i love -- i think it started when i was very, very small, and my grandmother, who was the daughter of a confederate veteran, used to sit in her rocker. she had a rocking chair and she had -- she dipped garrett snuff.

and she had this little brown streak that ran down her cheek and a hairy chin, whiskers and a coffee can here that she would pick up by this manner and in it like that. and whenever i went to see her she always wanted to kiss me because she's my grandma, and i loved listening to her story, that word of mouth, about my great grandfather, and his escapades or episodes in the war. he was captured south of vicksburg. and i loved that. every time i'd go up to visit my grandmother in east texas, she had a picture of me, i said, tell me more stories. i suspect some of those stories were actually true. but knowing my family, i also suspect that there was a little bit of embellishment in them. i think we need to focus on history, not only because saving the documents that we have that we're talking about today is important, but i think it's also important to look at history as

a method to kind of heal some wounds and maybe to bind us together a little bit and take those historical examples that are pertinent today. because i'm a believer, you know, i was in the legislature for six years, and i came to conclude that there are no new public policy issues. nothing's new. it's got different names and different players and different times. but it's the same stuff that's happened before. we can make historical associations with that. and we can show folks who have no interest in history or who would ask the question, why do we need to save it? we can say this is why we need to save it. because it's directly applicable to what occurs today, and i'll give you an example of an issue, you know, that kind of boils -- right now, it's actually near a boiling point because we have a presidential race going under way right now, and we eve always had this issue of immigration. you know, this discussion about

immigration and a sub issue of that is education and education of children who are non-english speakers. since i've told you already that i'm not a historian, then i have license to say things that may not be completely factually accurate. one of my favorite stories about that is miriam a. ferguson, it is said, it is believed that m.a. ferguson who became governor when her husband was impeached and removed from office and couldn't run again announced unbeknownst to her that she was running for governor, and she sflulfully uc won that after, in a runoff election with ku klux klan candidate. she became the governor. and we had an issue about how to educate children who are primary spanish speakers. back then, they just said, do we teach them in english or in spanish? m.a. ferguson was asked that when she was governor in 1923 or 1924. she said, how do we teach children who are primarily

spanish speakers? and she responded what is the most infamous quote in texas political history when she said if english was good enough for jesus christ, it's good enough for the skilled children of texas. now, i don't know if that's true. i don't know if that's lore or legend. but it brings history right into today, and it makes people think about, you know, maybe there are some lessons to be had from what's occurred before. similarly when today you'll get to go to the archives. i think it's one of the options and we, have you know, i think the eye-watering documents over there. a couple of them are illustrative of i restoration. so you may not be able to see it. but we have a leather-bound volume that's about that wide, about that thick, about that tall, and it's a register of a gentleman named esteva and some other names are in there.

it's the original 300. it's an entry for each of those. it's handwritten in spanish by anglos. who had only been here a short while. why were they writing in spanish? why not in their native language? well, because the language of commerce was spanish. if you wanted to succeed, you had to speak and read and write spanish. similarly today, the language in commerce in texas today is english. another document that i think is pretty interesting is we have a register of the board of commissioners of the bexar county. it's about the 1838-'39 time frame but it's a list of folks who appeared before the lives commissioners to prove up their title for land. some of that was due to their military service, some to the time that they -- criteria for

how much land you got. there's a column there and a couple of names in the columns. there's a name of david crockett represented by robert, his son. and then just a couple of spaces away is a name juan seguin. represented by himself, and so apparently david crockett or robert crockett and juan seguin were in the same place on the same day, and you wonder if they had a conversation, you know, someone who had seen his father before he died at the alamo. on that also -- also on that document that's pretty compelling is that there's a immigrant or native? and if you go down and look at the names, every anglo name is immigrant. every hispanic name is native. we were the immigrants. people who look like me. we were the immigrants. we were the newcomers. as a matter of fact, i love going to various places and talking to -- particularly at republican events. we're going to build a fence on

the border here, and we're going to do this and do that. and somebody will say, i'm a fifth generation texan. and i'll say, did your ancestor come here legally or illegally? what do you mean? mr. jones? you know. no, of course, they came -- well, you're not so s aif ty di sponsored by a presadao grant, they probably were illegal and if they came here during a period, i forgot the time when immigration was suspended by -- either by mexico or another state, they were illegal immigrants. we have a long tradition of illegal immigration, but it started out with anglos and people who talked the language that i talk and maybe who had blue eyes and red hair or blond hair, whatever. we have to keep that in context. it's directly applicable to what we're talking about today. anyway, i don't want to take up your time. people who actually know something will be talking to you most of the day. i told you about the m.a. ferguson story. there's another wonderful story

directly related to the land office about a former commissioner named pegleg ward. if you have time, read about pegleg. it will be very, very entertaining and true. no one can hold a candle to pegleg ward. that's all i have to say. i appreciate y'all being here. god bless texas. thank you. [ applause ] >> we're already ahead of time. we have a distinguished group of speakers today. introducing the first one right now, just to remind you, we will have half-hour lecture, speech, talk by one of the gentlemen and then a q&a period right after their talk. we have two microphones in a room. if you have a question at the end, please raise your hand. let us get a microphone to you so you can be heard by everybody else and so you can be recorded by c-span.

it's my distinct pleasure to introduce to you dr. gene allen smith. he's the professor of history at texas christian university at ft. worth. he is author or editor of seven books and numerous articles and reviews on early american history and naval and american maritime history. he also serves as director of studies at tcu and since april of 2008 as curator of history at the fort worth museum of science and history. talking this morning, his title is thomas jefferson, manifest destiny, and the texas revolution. please help me welcome dr. smith. [ applause ] >> thank you so much. it's a pleasure to be here today. i need something a little

taller. my mom always told me i should be the first one to speak in the room. that way, if i said something that was out of place, there would be a chance for others to follow up and correct me. so hopefully i can get started today, and i'll say a few things that you might think, well, that seems out of place. but fortunately the land commissioner's already told you many of the fireworks of my presentation because it's really about texas before it became anglo. and how certain people wanted it to become anglo. now, one of the things i can tell you is that i'm an early american historian, and i work on the era of thomas jefferson, and you may say that thomas jefferson really has no association whatsoever with texas. well, that's not exactly correct. i mean, he does have an association with texas. in fact, what we see is he has a

vision. and this vision he had was what he called an empire of liberty. and certainly texas embodies that empire of liberty. it was a vision that will provide the framework for manifest destiny. it will provide the framework for the texas revolution, and it's really going to lay the foundation for what becomes a continental empire. it stretches from the atlantic to the pacific. now, because of that, jefferson believed that tejas, that that was a cornerstone in what he saw as american expansion. now, for someone who studies thomas jefferson, one thing i can tell you is that -- this is in a day and age before twitter and before facebook, and he wrote more than 20,000 letters. and the thing that kills me is how politicians from the right

and from the left are quick to cherry-pick his quotes and try to say that jefferson supported this or jefferson supported that. well, yeah, he did support this and that. and you figure he lived to be 80-plus years old. so over the course of a long life, he did have a lot of different attitudes. and his ideas and belief were always evolving and changing. well, in 1786, jefferson would write to a friend, he said, our continent must be viewed as the nest from which all america, north and south, is to be people. well, in 1791, the summer of 1791, the spanish governor of florida, quesada -- you said there was a pointer on this thing. pointer, pointer, pointer. is it -- okay. you take -- fortunately, you

guys know where florida is. but the spanish governor of florida, governor quesada extended an invitation for americans to move into florida. all they would need to do is spanish government. they would profess to be catholics, and they could acquire all the land they wanted. wealth, jefferson thought this was a great idea. in fact, he said he wished 100,000 americans would move there because it would give us peaceably what might otherwise cost us a war. now, what jefferson is telling us there is here is his vision for how americans would incorporate territory. they would be invited in. they would profess loyalty to that government. they would embrace that government's christian faith and then in due time, their american loyalties and emotions would bubble to the top. and at that point, they would

welcome the opportunity to join the constellation of stars and stripes. keep that in mind. that's a framework. that's a modus operandi that jefferson envisioned for america. in 1801, jefferson mentioned in his first inaugural address that the united states was a chosen country with enough room for our descendants to the 100th and 1,000th generation. now, jefferson was someone who was very precise about his wording. he was very precise about his use of language. 100th, 1,000th generation. do you know how long jefferson considered a generation? 30 years. 30 years. the 100th generation, 3,000 years. the 1,000th generation, 30,000 years.

he's saying there will be enough land here in north america for the 100th and the 1,000th generation. i think he kind of missed the boat on that one. well, even in 1801, his was a country that was already being limited in its growth. to the north -- try this pointer thing again -- to the north -- should have brought my own pointer. oh, don't want to go there. to the north, there are those lakes and there are british possessions north of that. that would limit american growth to the north. to the south, spanish florida, the gulf of mexico, that would temporarily limit american growth. to the west there are native americans and there are spaniards, frenchmen.