 One of the things we really find most satisfying about these annual symposies is that our own faculty participate and for this morning session we have two Frank Barney and David Meyer both from the social sciences social studies department and we're going to start with Frank Barney and he's going to go to the podium and speak briefly but his something this morning is TR's impact on international affairs so professor Frank Barney We are very used to the idea of the United States as a world power and as a major player But that was not always the case for much of the early history of the nation when the Americans were content to look in and Presidents followed that lead Americans were more concerned with domestic affairs they were concerned with the expansion of American boundaries over the continent and The our paper's presentation this morning she mentioned the concept of the city on a hill Many of my students who I see here today are used to me talking about that It's again the concept that this nation was something different And out of that I believe became the concept of Memphis destiny The United States was destined to expand on the entire North American continent and later I think the concept of America's exception wasn't there again. There's something different and unique about this nation But Americans for a hundred years tried very hard to avoid getting involved in anybody else's business George Washington warned the nation against entangling itself in alliance with other countries John Adams attempted to keep the nation out of the words that we're sweeping Europe Thomas Jackson went so far as to largely dismantle the nation's military establishment on the grounds that we have no military Who would be less tempted to intervene in foreign conflicts? although in fact That led to the perception of weakness of the United States Which really caused our first overseas military venture against the barbaric pirates James Madison James Monroe followed the tradition as best they could and the Temperatory made a loop from the conflicts of Europe. Although they did want to get involved in the war in 1812 But the country refused to involve itself beyond its own boundaries and immediate environments the Monroe Doctrine Which appears to be an attempt to flex American muscle in international reunions has to be understood in the light That there was no American muscle to flex at this time. We were not a world power. We were not a second-rate power The doctrine was really an attempt to create a hemisphere in which foreign powers would not trade Leaving the US trade from foreign conflict of the presidents who followed run up until we can make Only a handful had any meaningful attempt to involve the nation in foreign affairs or have a coherent aggressive foreign policy Very quickly just to run through the names John Quincy Adams Andrew Jackson Martin Van Buren Zachary Jason James Tyler Zachary Taylor billy-fillmore Franklin Pierce and James V tenon. We went through all those presidents And all of them were far more concerned with domestic affairs only James K. Polk Among the first 15 Have a real foreign policy and it was concerned primarily with adding land by forcing war on a reluctant Mexico He was not concerned heavily concerned at least with all the student involvement in the affairs of foreign nations Abraham Lincoln of course faced a domestic crisis of cataclysmic proportions Which limited his foreign policy to these succinct praise one word time Attempting to minimize potential issues for the nations Andrew Johnson spent most of his single term simply trying to hold on to his office Ulysses S. Rantz's sole foreign policy was ensuring that France did not establish his strong foothold in Mexico while Ruffinger B. Hayes James Garfield Chester A. Arthur Robert Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison presided over a long period in which US foreign policy was limited to Expanding trade and establishing a foothold in the Pacific by acquiring the White Islands By the time we need to office Americans were accustomed to this inward focus They were accustomed to the idea of avoiding entanglements abroad They satisfied themselves with the drive to expand across the North American continent Having spent more than a century turning their gaze as ever westward toward the expansive frontier They had never given a great deal of thought to what they'd be on their own nation aside from a few tentative overtures In the direction of purchasing Caribbean items from the colonial powers who had long since claimed them Although the Spanish-American world was fought on the Kinley's watch It was a war I don't think he ever really wanted and that he tried strangely to avoid but it was a war that he or was about desperately wanted He was assistant secretary of the Navy, but he was really the de facto secretary of the Navy He pretty much ran that was there and he shouted long and loudly But it was a war the United States needed no better prove itself to the rest of the world and to acquire an empire They were allowed to compete with the great powers When the Kinley hesitated Roosevelt complained that the president had all the backbones of a chocolate eclair But it will be a mistake and an injustice to do if you're a Roosevelt as a short-sighted Liger and warm-hearted When he found himself Unexpectedly president he simply threw himself in the forum affairs the same way he always told himself into every field of it ever at first He aggressively expanded the primaries with a little doctrine as our speaker this is how he told us this morning You know loudly you don't mind only giving the United States the right to Interpreting in the affairs of sovereign nations of the Western Hemisphere It would be easy to do this as arrogance and to some degree it is The TR's reasoning was that if other nations were going to put themselves in positions of debt and foreign powers And then rely on the United States to protect them from the consequences of their actions Then the US had the right to see that those nations did not abuse the protection extended to them by the modern or doubted And so the Roosevelt was born When he felt that a major obstacle standing between the US and the chief of the great power status was the need for a canal Connecting the oceans and typical fashion he determined to do what? Going all the way back to Zachary Taylor presidents. I talked on and off about He actually did I'm not going to go into all the details our speaker this morning has covered it much better than I ever could But he got his gun out He did I don't want to say the only believe it probably expertly believe He was the first president to travel overseas and the first to send the United States fleet on a cruise around the world to show the flag And to demonstrate America in the evil way But as well significant achievement in the field of foreign affairs may well have been a negotiation of the treaty that ended the Russo-Japanese War A war that really didn't directly touch the United States at all. So again, this is markedly different than the concepts of other presidents Who only dealt with foreign affairs in so far as they affected the United States? His style and negotiating helping to negotiate this treaty or brokering this treaty probably more more actively Was remarkably similar in some ways to how he dealt with domestic labor management strike Get both sides to sit down together and not let them leave until they agree on something That would help both parties It was not a treaty that directly served us interests, but it was a treaty that probably needed to get done We can see a change Following the Roosevelt administration and the way American presidents looked at foreign affairs Before being a Roosevelt most presidents paid little attention to them except to try and stay out of involvement in other people's wars Roosevelt however appear appears to have used foreign affairs the same way he viewed domestic affairs As something that needed to be addressed in the United States would be the mighty nation in the end vision He became president in a new century a young president the youngest at that time The president of a young nation in the young century and he believed that this nation needed to grow into the century and into its role in world affairs The men who followed him in the White House have for the most part followed his lead No longer are presidents able to ignore the rest of the world and hope to leave them alone For better or worse either Roosevelt established a tradition of American presidents taking an active role as world leaders Today the president of the United States is generally referred to as the leader of the free world I'm sure that's a phrase theater goes about what it loved By changing the way American presidents who looked at foreign policy he helped put his nation on the road to great power status Thank you very much Really much appreciate those opening statements. You'll have a chance to engage with Professor Barney here in a short time Ever since we began these symposia five years ago I've been wanting to get there that I admired to talk about the Roosevelt and the Russian pogroms This was a period of intense anti-sanitism in some parts of Europe and Russia and Roosevelt was aware of this People petitioned him to get all of this. He was very cautious about it But they're not only the chair of the Department of Social Sciences here But he is as an intense interest in Holocaust studies And I think this is going to be just outstanding so they would please When what addresses the the question of Roosevelt and Russian the groans and trying to place them in a context of making sense Roosevelt's actions You'll find that as you approach April 6th 1903 and you're looking at the letters and the exchanges that are taking place What's very clear? I'm starting with this focal point and we're going to broaden out But when you focus in on Roosevelt's attempt to understand the events that are taking place in Kishinaw in particular the pogroms and the territory They'll be known as Bessaradia a territory That was only part of the Russian Empire As of 1812 and I'll go back to Bessaradia and Kishinaw in terms of the details in Just a second but the idea of looking at Roosevelt's response Just as a reminder Even before we begin the details What's clear is that Roosevelt is torn and I would say in the best sense as a human being Because as he's confronted with the information to place Overcoming loss It's not fair to say that he was simply responding to the place and the public call and the petition of 12,000 Signatures on it asking him to stand the fact is is that he was torn because while he felt For the individuals who were killed in those pogroms. I think honestly He also realized that there were serious limitations on how far he could go and he was not certain How far he'd go impressionate pressuring the Russian government and the argument would be very simple If one boiled it down to 10 the United States Intervening what were considered to be domestic Russian affairs I Now you got that I'm gonna go back to it. Do you get a feel for what happens in Kishinaw? Beginning on Easter Sunday April 6th 1903, but I want to step back just for a moment To remind you of what these terms mean and how they are anything But easy to grapple with today and they weren't easy to grapple with in the days of Roosevelt Which would have made any decision you could make more complicated Russian pogroms What do they represent? as play indicated anti-Semitism Was a part of life in the Russian Empire? Jews were restricted to a territory known as the pale of settlement running roughly from St. Petersburg through modern-day Credit they were restricted further to the towns that they could live in They were as you approach the end of the 19th century Subject to twice the normal enlistment in the Russian army, which interestingly enough was 25 years And so Jews were not uncommonly when they were drafted for to serve for 50 years So the situation for the Jews was less than any more At the same time We have what are considered to be the outbreak of popular violence against the Jews and that's the term pogrom But the problem becomes How we understand Just what we're talking about is a popular outbreak of violence against the Jews of the community was it on the other hand Led and inspired by members of the Russian Orthodox Church and before one It's to draw enough even into that You need to remember that the Russian Orthodox Church was part of the Russian government at the time and was part of What I would call a rustication campaign as well as the extension of the orthodox traditions to the corners as they could I'm not suggesting however that they were in some conspiratorial sense Manipulating the events towards progress But now in terms of programs to give you a sense of the immediate environment When I was headed the second with assassinated in 1881 Again, this is sort of conflicting messages that you're going to get out of the second was on his way to propose the creation of Essentially a generous more democratic structure for the Russian state He had but 20 years earlier issued his pedigree man's patient Despite the conflict the image was one of promise for Russians and Russia's peasants and for Russia's future overall But he's assassinated at that moment appears that he's going to go the next step towards modernizing his government His assassination By a group known as people's will had a spin-off effect in many villages in the form of children's We don't know how many of them were Official how many of them were spontaneous We just think we know that it became a problem after the assassination We know that throughout the 1880s, there were pros in Russia We also know however that after the death and outing of the second his replacement on its end of the third was a very aggressive and effective administrator. He was also the instigator of the Ocarina of the Russians for police So what else can we add to the picture the image of the Jews in terms of the Russian government Would include that of being involved in and that's what ended around movements like people's will but also other groups that were desiring to go through the Russian government Don't know who to associate with the Russian social Democrats and the Russian Marxists Now we all know At the same time we're talking about 1903 The Russian government is now confronted in such a program as political and civilian by the time of 1903 the Russian government has been fronting hundreds and some people as maybe in a thousand plus so Terrorists act in this forest every year It's a serious challenge The Russian government is looking for a way out as you know on the horizon of course is the rest of Japanese war What will ultimately transpire of course is we will have our Figure theater rose up intervening going through the 1905 1906 so Why do I mention that right now? Because as you begin to look back and ask the question What is Peter Roosevelt doing while he's interested in the Panama Canal? He's interested in the extinction of American influence over the rest of hemisphere He's also looking back on what was transpiring in Europe over the course of the 1880s and 1890s And that was essentially what was described for Africa So as the African continent was being absorbed formally to European structure There's a certain irony that over in the western hemisphere you have precisely the same thing transpiring even if it's delayed by a decade or so So where are the priorities? Where is one actually looking? What does President who's looking at possible re-election following year and a quarter do when the information Begins to unfold and public in New York begins to agitate for action Let's remember that roughly 13,000 Russian Jews every year were coming from the United States And they were coming in particular to the door and they were in particular Passing around first-hand information about what actually transpired in addition and of course here are the details There were at least of the 50,000 Jews lived in the town of roughly 100,000 hundreds of them Were injured and guessed in thousands at least 50 were killed We know that their shops were looted and we also know that ultimately speaking This would become a catalyst for the Zionist movement We didn't say one of the linchpins ultimately behind the momentum that would go towards the creating of the state of Israel In the years that to come so what's rose about the scenario? April of 1903 April May June 10 the United States Ultimately doing should the United States intervene in the domestic affairs of Russia Broke all the one point actually contemplated making the donation to an organization that was gathering funds for the benefit of the survivors To do something for that it wasn't a big Domestic with a symbolic donation, but in final analysis His advisors told him that it probably wasn't wise to do He would have fixed his signature for the petition of 12,000 means that would be ultimately sent to St. Petersburg and Samaritan rejected But he recognized that there were limits To what we could do, but at the same time, I think on a personal note We can say that he also recognized and it's offering a relatively small group of people and a relatively backward part Of the Russian Empire what happens after this is their way of assesses that as you move from 1903 onwards Well, the sad future is of course the rest of Japanese war back in the war back to the bottom Sad future is however in 1905 Russians will begin confronted with the internet revolution the change and we will again confront it with quagros And it will again brutally suppress them so Again one has to ask the question Was this from rosa's point of view a battle we're fighting or was the greater battle to be seen in America's role as a mediator as a power of entrusted How it balance out these two very demanding pieces of real history as they unfolded at that moment I think the closer you look at the war you have Several and one of which is rose the politician in New York the other which is rose about the politician's president The fact that he does have a policy that is directed towards the western hemisphere And I think you can argue that he doesn't want to open up the door as you heard many times so far To the possibility that those same individuals in Europe will think that as he's over there they should play some role over here So kiss your nose is a good example rose about I think it is best but also probably that one is more complicated points Thank you very much Thank you very much Thank you Professor Browning Professor Meyer really agreed from our keynote This is really a chance of every year we do evaluations and people always say the same thing there wasn't enough time for audience Questions Not enough time for the audience to participate we just jam so many things and so we've got a good time here up to 45 minutes I just want to start with one quick question for David for those who need a more precise definition What is what exactly are you talking about? I stay city at triple five together You know the concept of Rome is specifically linked with Eastern Europe And it is a term that is typically employed for 19th century What the newspapers would look at appears to be a popular uprising against the Jews of the community And like any term it seems to be laced with elements of analysis and perhaps elements of wishful thinking The problem with the term called Rome is that we can't definitively say that it was just spontaneous And Roosevelt himself would have been confronted with the fact that the popular image coming from the survivors And those that were immigrating was that the Russian government was actively encouraging the Romans through its various agencies Although typically it's going to be the priest of the Orthodox church but it's going to be a bit of a play So some sort of a spontaneous maybe organized persecution with violence against the Jewish community There's certainly an opportunity to character to it and they're just spontaneous But they tend to come at injuries sometimes like Easter And you were saying approximately 50 people were killed, thousands or hundreds injured Well in the case of Kishanab, when you get right down to the number of problems there this fall The catch is that it has much more of an international resonance It goes to the newspaper, the fact that it has been an effort to discredit the Russian government And the fact that at this point in time compared to previous events It appears that there are more newspaper accounts circulating than ever in the case before So it's an event that is not in and of itself significantly different from other programs It's different in terms of internationalization I think we have a question here please Steve I'll repeat the questions just so that they're on paper Go ahead I have a question for Professor Barney and then depending upon your answer sir I haven't followed The question is did the United States have any choice but to become a great power? I mean was the alternative that we would be like Africa or China Carved up inevitably into spheres of influence by these so-called great powers If we didn't ourselves become a great power Did we have any choice? You talk about the long isolationist tradition of America But he's suggesting maybe we have no choice but to rise to world power I guess that's an accurate question I tend to think that probably it was inevitable The alternative would have been to remain a second class power Or a third class power which we've done for most of our existence Given the spirit of the American people I think that was unlikely first of all And given the spirit of leaders whom they chose Similar or later we were going to move into the international arena more aggressively But yes I think that given the size and the resources of the continent If we didn't exploit the resources of someone else who wanted it We didn't have the power to prevent that It might very well have happened The greatest crisis of course in that regard was the American Civil War Which is actually my field The fact that the United States being so close to sponsoring itself Once you establish the precedent that states can break off from the union Then where does it stop? It could have been just the North and the South But it could also have led to dozens of republics scattered across the United States Across the American continent In which case I think we would have been fragmented We can ultimately segment it and exploit it by the rest of the world Whether you're European powers at least You reserve your power And that is given that it's inevitable Don't you think it's a wonderful thing That Theodore Roosevelt happens to be the man in the helm when it happened If this was inevitable isn't it appropriate that Roosevelt was there at the mall? Yeah I knew I got myself in trouble as an undergraduate once In the 70s I remember it was the 70s So those people old enough to remember Think of the spirit of the campuses of the United States When I said in the class American imperialism It was not by a communist professor I said when did empire become a dirty word? And his response of course was To giving this horrible glare And other students in the class Many of whom were there Because it was better than Vietnam And it was better than Vietnam We're more than offended by our response But again If my students don't see a lot of you here You're probably sick of them hearing this I believe history needs to be studied In the context of the era in which it was made And for us in the 1970s Or today in the 21st century To judge the events of the past By our own moral compass Does the people who lived in the past A great disservice and it also prevents us From understanding history So yes I think it was a good thing That the United States became a great power I think it would be hard to argue That the presence of the United States As a great power or at least potentially great power In the 1940s Without that I don't know where the rule would be today I know it's politically incorrect To speak of the Soviet Union As the enemy But they were viewed as the enemy Throughout the Cold War And Americans rightly or wrongly believe That we were what prevented the world We stood between the world and the domination Of totalitarian power Again, had the United States Not been a world power So I think it is a good thing I think the other Roosevelt was the man For the moment Before I came to North Dakota And again, the other Roosevelt Was not my specific field of study Against the American Civil War I knew something about him But let's see what I knew about him Was almost a cartoon about The shining glasses Wishing mustache, a big smile And a bombastic headstrong Publication And I understood his High degree of intelligence I was much more impressed With the man and the president Again, it's Hard to justify some of the actions he took But in the context of the area In which he took them I think it's not hard to understand them Julie, this is a good time To bring you back into the question And I was thinking of asking you this During your talk It's sort of a question of The pantheory of history In your book you attempted To sort of write it without Roosevelt to the extent possible Because your real focus was on the workers And the people who actually made the Panama Canal Happen There were literally tens of thousands of them Their stories are compelling But you said before you went up That you sort of almost pondered yourself back With Roosevelt because it's a nice narrative tie And because of the thickness Of what he exemplifies So if Roosevelt had never been born Would there be a Panama Canal How much agency does he actually have In this great Engineering event? Well that is a great question I think he possesses A lot of agency I mean I do I have my poems about Roosevelt as you said I come to this subject as a Labor and working class historian And a lot of people like David I mean brilliantly About the Panama Canal So my role as I was writing my book Was to try to tell a different story To tell it from the perspective Of the working men and women who built it And the last thing I wanted to talk about in my book Was Theodore Roscoe But I realized that And my editors helped me realize That Especially if I wanted to reach Not just professors And students but I really wanted I mean it is a great story And I wanted to reach a larger Audience And they said well how can you do that Without talking about The individuals who Exercise a lot of agency Like Roosevelt So I ended up realizing that I needed to use him And use his agency In telling the story And he was an amazing person He had this Ferocious appetite For power and for life And for changing The face of the earth And even though my Talk today and my book Were both kind of about trying to Disrupt the triumphalism We associate with the canal I also acknowledge that there are Some dark good reasons Why it is a triumphalist moment It was incredible Canal bridging Two oceans 60,000 people Involved Over the years Almost 200,000 people Involved it It was a monumental thing And would it have happened without him You know Another person might have come along But it certainly wouldn't have had Quite the shape and drama Without him You know what are the things that Bridges The two comments When one looks At American policy on the Roosevelt And you're looking at declarations Suggesting an extension Of their authority over South America Go to women's areas and they're going to do that With the Just a plain smile You've got to be kidding The idea Of extending American authority Unless I ask ourselves blood questions There are no American military bases to be spoken of There are no American military Activities that go down Into South America But Depending on what canal You could say is where The rubber is the pavement That's where the money speaks The loudest Represents a real expansion Of the presence of the United States Anyone that's permanent So instead of putting the declaration Towards all of the Western industry Up front, realize that the money only knows To the bad luck it out Yes, please Last night you mentioned about Roosevelt's influence there I wondered if you could expand a little bit more Specifically on the Philippines And some of the issues that rose With occupancy as opposed to war Taking over And this is about the Specific on the African-Americans War and Americans' occupation Of the Philippines which turned out to be a very Troubled harassed And Roosevelt became president When this took a dark turn Yeah, briefly The Philippine's direction cost far more American lives than the American Captured the Philippines from the Spanish did. It was longer And it was a situation That the other Roosevelt inherited And quite then I don't know what to do about it At various times his teams To have alternated between Trying to clean up the mess And trying to product American generals with committed atrocities And then sweeping the other way And then being furious at the atrocities Because of the non-Americans Because it was, it was an awful thing And probably were terrible things But ultimately one of the things That you do see Is that the Philippines were Left in a better place At least in terms of infrastructure From the American occupation As it was too long, schools were built Hospitals were built Infrastructure was vastly improved Over what it had been under the Spanish So It's, it's a terrible thing The Philippine's direction again It's far costly in terms of American lives And in terms of time And in terms of money That the actual seizure of the Philippines From the Spanish was Julie, I don't know if you want to weigh in on this But when you look at Roosevelt's reaction role That he inherits this He was one of the great advocates Of going to war But he, I think, assumed it would be A much simpler aftermath That it turns out to be this This morass with atrocities And torture and killings Were agonized over this on the one hand As a man of righteous morality He's appalled that in the American Would ever commit a metrosity of this sort And yet as somebody who wrote The winning of the West He knows that these things come with that territory This was a tough moment for him, wasn't it? Yeah, but I think When push came to shove Roosevelt sided on the side Of tough things have to happen And the moral vision The moral righteousness is with The United States And that led him to By today's standards some pretty Rough judgments I mean in Cuba he was Happy that the officials There resorted to Public horse whipping Of Cubans who violated Sanitation rules In the Philippines he was Very adamant that He was privately upset About the atrocities, the water Tortures and things like that But he was very Very ferocious in shutting down Public criticism In trying to cover over And saying that anyone who's Critical is basically not Manly enough to do the job That has to be done So, you know I think it is really important I think Dr. Varney's point about The moral compass of today We have to be very Confident of the fact that the morality Then for someone like Roosevelt Was different But also that the moral compass Of the Filipinos was different too They wanted independence They thought the United States was Going to war against Spain To help them achieve independence And instead the United States Became a new colonial power And that was very Difficult in terms of their Moral compass that they had to find To deal with it. I think The whole issue of the U.S. As a world power is so fascinating Because of this complication I had a colleague At the University of Maryland When they did a thing When my book came out And because I talk about Empire, the title of the book He said, well, you act like You think empire is bad And he said, don't you Think that U.S. Built schools and did infrastructure And I said, you know what The history of empire would be really Boring if it was only bad It's the fact that The good comes with the bad That makes it Fascinating and troubling At the same time And it is important to remember As you mentioned earlier That U.S. is informed by The racial prejudices Of his time And the people of the Philippines Were certainly not ready To document themselves They obviously believed that they were But he was firmly convinced Of the racial sense of security Of the Anglo-Saxon races As he would have put it So, again, it may seem Unpowerable to our modern Sensibilities, but by the Spirit of his time He's operating within pretty Much normal parameters Magnum opus, the winning of the west Which is a really interesting text To read in this context Roosevelt is talking about The winning of the Ohio Valley Essentially, he was planning To project the war all the way out To the Wounded Knee and beyond But he didn't get around to it Because he got so busy with other things But he did write four volumes And this is regarded as, in a sense His most significant Contribution to American history And the badges by which he Here means stirred up American Indians Is the most righteous of all Wars, and then he talks about The Wars in South Africa And the Anglo-Saxons He does not mince words He says that horrible Electrocities have occurred on both sides We have done things, we Anglo-Saxons Have done things that are Unconscionable, unacceptable, unjust, appalling But when you look at it from The broadest perspective There's wars, necessary wars And there are wars on behalf of the world That we want to bring about And so he left a lot of clues In that text It's hard to read those passages today You can hand them out to students And they're appalled by what they read But Roosevelt is wrestling with the problem Of the Europeanization of the North American Confident And the Europeanization of the globe And he seems to think that This sort of appalling Violence is just one element That can't be avoided In this sort of domination Adjusted by the means It's a really interesting text To take a look at, other questions Yes, please Addressed to the panel The question of just the American Motivation for an empire We look at the other European powers Who are looking for natural resources We assume they were motivated by Economic development taking over And selling products there What is our motivation? Is it Roosevelt's kind of very Desire for adventure Why are we colonizing it this time With our huge natural resources Our massive markets It seems like what exactly is the purpose For an American colonial empire If you could address that We've been talking about an empire But not really asking ourselves Why we felt the urge to do it What were the motivations Going to the scramble For Africa Who was intended to demonstrate And it wouldn't simply relate to Africa It's also taking place In Asia And it's very clear, at least for me That Roosevelt is part of that European mindset It's nothing to the social Darwinism It's the consequences of social Darwinism That states that continue to expand Have demonstrated their verility Now, maybe you can't expand The way you would like it The notion of saying In some sense that South America belongs to us Reach within unbelievable arrogance Yet within this spirit of ties If sitting right next to them Metaphorically we have A Frenchman Or somebody representing Britain Essentially saying the same thing about Africa In the spirit of the times I think it makes sense So while we use the terms colonial I think it probably would be safer To talk in terms of Of an attitude towards empire And imperialism That has the civilizing component Loathing into it alongside Of a social Darwinistic component Others? If you wanted to be In the early 20th century In the 19th century If you wanted to be a great power You needed a man's butter You needed colonies You needed to be able And willing to expand You had to be able to demonstrate And theodore Roosevelt wanted This nation to be a great power I think a good portion of the region Is simply Americans that decided Or many Americans obviously know That it was time for their nation to take Step out of the world stage You'll see this Without the nations as well When the Kaiser of Germany decided To determine that they were one Of a great power they decided That they wanted an empire But they were leaking into the game So will we And the Spanish American Were gamers the empire that we lack I think it's There's a lot of reasons for the social Darwinism aspect That would be certainly part of it I think economic prosperity Plans were rolled You wanted overseas markets And some of many of them have been Stacked up already by European powers And the game of power And in the context of that time Great powers out of the powers The one caveat I would add And you'll notice that in my explanation I said nothing about economics And that's because we've been accepting The great Britain where you can estimate That at its peak 20% of its GMP Is when it relates to relations With one of its colonies The residual part of its trade Is when you go first and foremost with Khan And secondly I would like you To the United States When you would need to look at any colonial power Including the United States Other than that minor caveat There is no economic advantage to empire That's a lot of life So to argue that they're doing economic reasons Suggest that either they buy into a myth of the tide To simply get the hold up Or the Force of having a futuristic vision Whether it's Wrong or not It represents the potential for resources The potential for expansion It doesn't become a reality But it does become a motive for expanding your control Into those territories Yeah I mean I think What Dr. Barney said is Really A great statement of why Roosevelt wanted Expansionism Basically he just thought We were ready, we were Rising power Really a great power We needed an empire We needed expansionism But I do think it's important to keep in mind The turmoil of the late 19th century And There was a recession Or a major depression In every decade in the 70's 80's and 90's There was also a long 30 year Deflationary crisis Crisis kept dropping Putting businesses out of business And so a lot of the turmoil Massive strikes Populist unrest among farmers Was due to those forces And there was a myth As it was I agree totally With the way you put it But myth because it was There was a very strong belief That what we needed was markets abroad That that would help us economically It would solve the problem Deflation was thought to be caused By overproduction basically We needed more consumption And markets abroad would give us that And there was also a sense that There was a sense that Americans Because of industrialization And proletarianization That Americans were kind of losing their Verility That they needed to prove themselves As a manly race And an empire Would help achieve that So all those kinds of arguments Floating around in the late 19th century From there for a moment because I mean it has actually a North Dakota connection I think Just before the Spanish-American war Roosevelt gave us a speech At the Naval War College which was a very Fire-breathing, imperialistic Speech in which he said all great nations Have been warrior nations and all great men Have a little bit of a wolf in them President McKinley wasn't happy About that speech John D. Long wasn't happy about that speech But Roosevelt was very happy about that speech And he expressed what he really thought He was a student and friend Of Frederick Jackson Turner And Turner's thesis was that American character had been Defined by the frontier That Americans going over the Frontier line And plowing up ground Had never been plowed before And killing off the bears and varmints And having righteous wars against Native peoples and building Masonic lodges and churches and schools Which the American character had been born And in 1890 Turner Saw the census That effectively closed the American Frontier and wrote his famous essay The Significance of the Frontier in American History But Roosevelt had his own frontier thesis It was more violent than Turner's His view was that Turner was right that these pioneers on their Masonic lodges had been the crucial American character but he wanted to make sure We never forgot that there was violence At the center of this thing too Against Indian peoples and that was The burden of the winning of the west When he came to North Dakota in 1883 To get a little of that Frontier experience because he regarded This as one of the last places where that Kind of authentic Daniel Boone Like experience could be had And he worried as did Turner as did all sorts of people About what the closing of the frontier Would mean for the way the American Character was shaped and so for Roosevelt to see that we could In view of that pattern Abroad in Cuba in Hawaii In the Philippines in Puerto Rico In other places Became an extension Of something that he believed That if we lost the American Character would deteriorate And so the same thing That brought him to North Dakota In 1883 is Alive in this Imperialist experience We were talking last night about Sarah Watts And was here a few years ago. Both of them Have looked about gender, virility Masculinity in American character As one of the motivating forces For all of this. Go ahead You were going to say. Yeah, I think it's an excellent point play It's the idea of we need a frontier That the Americans Needed a frontier, needed a place to prove Their individual man And that the nation needed a place to prove It's national virility And as my colleagues were very accurate in pointing out A lot of Recent scholarship has really kind of Exposed the myth of Empire as an economic benefit To nations. A very fine historian John Keegan writing that in the 1980s I think The myth, or the price of that Little thing was something with the book And he talked about how many empires Were simply not worth the trouble of the expense And yet it was almost as though You had to collect these Colonies if you were going to be great So it's sort of an Traditional Exorcised power Some other questions, I feel certain. Yes, back here Before we move on First one on the other side Comment if you would Relative to how Roosevelt's thoughts and feelings About imperialism and the Necessity for war matured As he grew through presidency And beyond. Yeah, good question How did Roosevelt's thoughts about imperialism Necessity of war, etc Matured or evolved in the course of his career? Or did it? What was an interesting book Called The Warrior and the Priest Which argues that interestingly enough Wilson turns out to be the warrior And Roosevelt turns out to be the priest That one of Roosevelt's anxieties About his own presidency was That there wasn't a major world conflict For him to preside over That therefore he could never be ranked As one of the very greatest presidents But when he had opportunities during his presidency To ratchet up or ratchet down Turns out he ratcheted up the Russo-Japanese war And another affair I think it would be fair to say that It's almost peculiar that when he's vice president He seems to be anxious to have the Brother fire and brimstone type Which is regarded as foreign policy Once he's president on the other end The theorists would say that he seems to be More inclined to look at There is an opportunity We might call them political matins We might call them areas where There's really no serious danger here To Americans, at least in terms of Conception Because we go down the hit list of the places That we find Roosevelt's banding He's not confronting France He's not confronting Great Britain He's not confronting Russia There's another piece that goes with that picture Not only is he not confronting the powers That exist at the time He is also In his actions Very conservative in his estimation But the strength of those other powers Is going to remain static I would say that's his wager And that he's hoping That there's a window of opportunity For the ISAC to be included on the ranks Of those powers, but not to Russia to conflict with them It's also interesting that After his presidency He becomes more aggressive again And he's continually urging Woodrow Wilson To take a former stand against, because Germany So it seems, it's an interesting point In my opinion, I've never considered before He's far more belligerent Before he's president and after he's president Than while he's president That's a good sign, I think Given power Another interesting thing about him Is that he does Ship the United States For all of his bellicose posturing He ships the US Profoundly away from Formal colonization And imperialism We have formal colony In the Philippines, Puerto Rico Has only limited freedom, but in general He prefers sort of Economic and cultural domination With limited military Interventions, what possible And that becomes a distinctive US approach to things Informal Expansionism, or informal imperialism And only Limited episodes Of formal colonialism In fact, he famously said Of the Dominican crisis That he would rather than Colonize the Dominican Republic Or occupy it, he would rather swallow Or occupy it back then There was a second question Go ahead I do agree, Julie Kindly kidding, Charlotte, but Is there an accounting Of the building of the Panama Canal And please know That a dear friend who was born Of Panama did study In North Dakota, B.A. B.A. B.S. M.S., the University of North Dakota So this is not A kind of affirmative question But is there an accounting Of the building of the Panama Canal Did the American government Pay Down to the workers of the canal itself Did American corporations pay Their subcontractors To the people building the canal What actually happened In terms of accounting Can you share with us How we actually paid for all of this Who paid, how is it paid What's it paid justly and so on Yes, the United States Government funded it It came in at about $352 million Which was under budget There The workers The U.S. workers there Were paid very well About 50% more than they would Make for a similar job In the United States In fact they were treated So marvelously well They got six weeks paid Vacation every year And a pre-steamship ticket Home to visit family Four weeks paid sick leave Free housing Etc. It was such a nice Set up for the U.S. workers That some people worried they would Come home converted to socialism Because They had seen that government ownership Could be such a great thing The Caribbean workers Were paid radically less And lived in Puddles without screens on the Windows and so there were a lot Of tragic aspects to it But even for them they were making A lot more than they could have To make That's why they came by the Tens of thousands In many cases were able to Save money and enable them To go home and buy a Lot of land and get Some economic independence From their earlier Basically peasantry lifestyle So in terms of the Economics of it and how it Played out with the workers It was in that sense In that sense a pretty good deal But the workers' complaints Both Caribbean's and U.S. workers Had more to do with They felt like they didn't have much Freedom in the canal zone The government really ran things With an iron fist Anyone who was not producing Constructively to the project Could and would be Decorted or imprisoned And assigned to prison labor There was no treatment of speech Things like that so in that sense The constitution did not Follow the flag when it came To the canal zone and workers' Protests often focused on That fact. One of those persistent stories About Roosevelt visited in 1906 Was that he Declined some ceremonial Events and actually wanted to go Into the barracks where workers Were to eat what they ate To see how they were that he Said how are you doing? What do you need? Are you being treated fairly? You have any complaints? Is that true? Well Mary Chap filled a stenographer Who wrote a memoir and discussed His visit to Ha Exactly like she said I don't know if it's true or not Myself but she thought that it Was all a sham but she said If the public really thinks that He ate what those He ate themselves she thought It was kind of a media trait She was there and so she's debunking The instant myth that was created About this and saying that in fact He did not do all those things Her argument was that it was all Orchestrated and according to her That was kind of what was said Among the workforce there I mean maybe that's true Maybe that's not but the story That evolved and the color tells In such tales of this man Who refused to go to the fabulous Banquet because he wanted to go see The cabbage that in the suit That the actual workers were ingesting In here you're saying but there's Reason to doubt this story I'm saying that Roosevelt was brilliant Media manipulation I mean I'm not saying it's not true I'm just pointing out We are very disappointed And we have some doubts Before the panel Why didn't the British build the canal I mean goodness knows they had as much Interest that were a greater world Power all built on their navy Why didn't they Good question but we had a treaty In the 19th century the Great Britain Said that we couldn't do this alone That it would have to be a joint effort And joint sovereignty and that And yet when Roosevelt became president We concluded the second treaty with Great Britain that gave us a green light That led itself to America's canal Agenda why? So as my answer We're going to get the British Anticipation of a shorter route Over into India I don't think it represented the same Light of advantage as it did in previous Especially And the British were going to be in the Use of Panama canal We're very happy to look at the Americans Okay I mean those are two good answers That the British had other options Than fishers but I mean isn't It also possible that Britain understood The rising power of the United States And what there was some sort of a passive Acknowledgement of America's movement The world I don't think you could have Squeezed that out of the Britain I don't want to depend on it The idea of suggesting that they're Weaning is just an anthem To their sense of identity I think instead I would call it A very paternalistic attitude Of saying well we'll pat them on the head And then at the end of the day We'll use our Just the resources that are made To us to call it keep our mother Compactors of Europe out While in reality we know that the United States Can't do much more Than give a kind of big press To the edge This is This is A slightly different point But I will point out that the US Constructing the canal felt that All of Europe wanted it To fail And there were they would go to Britons to negotiate Can we get Your Jamaican workers to come And the British Government wouldn't allow it That's one reason why they ended up Relying so much on workers and Barbados They tried importing Spaniards And Italians and Greeks And they found those governments And they shut down Importation of workers from there And I don't know what those governments Were thinking but the US officials Believed that those European Countries wanted to seek the US Fail And in the case of Great Britain Their policy at this point was still That their native would be larger Than the next two nations in the world Providing and they had overseas Ports that had bases in places Like Singapore and Hong Kong That was a little bit helpful to them Was not in a sense anywhere as it really was To American legal power We have time for a few more, go ahead Yes Was Roosevelt really keeping an eye On that French situation You're saying it's not coming to his mind yet The question is about the French Fairway to build the Panama Canal Roosevelt's consciousness of that I think Roosevelt was very Very aware of it And in fact the French Were being so disastrous You know much higher mortality rates They simply Were on the wrong side of history If you will The US industrialization Had matured so the US Was able to build better steam shovels The Reason for The cause of malaria And yellow fever had been discovered The French didn't know that They thought it was caused by bad air Plus the fact that the US Made the wise decision to build a log Rather than a sea level canal All of those things made the US Effort successful Whereas the French effort had Felt and felt so Infamously so Disastrously that the French Government almost went bankrupt And the chief engineer and his son Were both put on trial for corruption So it was A perfect foil For Roosevelt because there you had France, old world Nation corrupt Lazy messes Everything up, here's the US The new world Smart Ingenious, efficient Viral So I think that Roosevelt Indeed was very well aware Of the French effort and Very much stood upon back To project the greatness of the US The less ups had done Suez which was a sea level canal Made the fatal mistake of thinking You could do a sea level canal through Panama We thought so too until we got some time Now it's your turn to go ahead Sorry about that I just want to tell the main question I also want Because you want one of the French version Of the attempt I got in Panama now But then came The next canal Well Suez canal And There's one theory I think that comes from history It comes from history Mostly for Dr. Green But I'd like to hear some Expansion from the other two people On the panel as well Well Suez canal Makes it through But as I said It's very much a Case of Empire Making sure There would be a creation Of Eric Frenchman Black Frenchman and so on And so forth Some historians look At Roosevelt And he looks at Suez Which is a great success And some I can do it better Or the U.S. can do it better And we will really be among Leading American South American And among countries Into A finer sense of their own Americanness Is there a solid question As much as engineering It's about the Americanization Of Central and South America Discussion that this was the first Step towards Americanizing Central and South America And the officials In charge of the U.S. Canal project did Compare what they were doing to Suez Especially in terms Of celebrations They one of the great To them one of the great tragedies Of the canal project By the U.S. Was that it could not be Celebrated in the way it should have been They were very aware of how The Suez Canal had been Celebrated when it was finished And they wanted very much to out do that They wanted a fleet of ships To go carrying President Wilson Through the canal to California To the World's Fair But one of the Ironies of history is That the canal was completed Just as World War I Was breaking out Pretty much all plans for celebration Had to be dropped Instead what you had Was a lot of comments in the U.S. Comparing These two moments Saying things like In Europe they've been busy With Death and guns And in the U.S. We've been busy with the steam shuttle And producing a new world And now you see the results We have just a few more minutes Go ahead The location of Roosevelt's Imperialistic policies Relevant today Since Vietnam and Iraq, Afghanistan Neurovisation of The world isn't going so well Do you see any threads there That are appropriate today Or is it pretty much Different time, different philosophy Close it down The American imperial policy Between Roosevelt's era and today I would jump in here And say that I do think that What I argued today was that Roosevelt not only expanded U.S. power But intertwined our notions Of the meaning of that power With a sense of moral righteousness And that is not Completely new to Roosevelt. That's a string that goes back At least to Jefferson About the U.S. as An empire of liberty And that we must expand This notion of liberty But I think that with the canal That became such a brilliant statement Of idealism And moral righteousness And I think myself that one of the Fascinating and complicated things About American power In the 20th century is how Americans sometimes Failed to see the negative Consequences of their actions In the world because they get Focused kind of like Roosevelt did on the Good side, the moral righteousness When I looked at the issue In the kitchen head and trying to Figure out how it fit into Roosevelt's vision of American foreign policy The part I was impressed with was The extent to which his Problem that any other president Is going to avoid The question of when is It appropriate to Take a moral stand Is the cost Of telling a country That you would like to view as a friend As a drawback To tell them how to deal with a problem They might have. I think on a very Human level to see the Difference between trying To orchestrate a Vision, an optimistic Vision. The visions are never realistic The idea is motivation And at the same time to realize That despite the rhetoric Roosevelt at these International conferences doesn't Russian as the advocate of liberty Justice for all or a new constitution He's there as a participant in the discussions And I think that's the reason why He can mediate between Russia and Japan He's not playing big stick He's playing the soft But confident He didn't have the time for one more I'll go ahead and make a question I have a question that's narrower than The questions we've been talking About regarding Panama But it's the administration of empire So one of the reasons that Roosevelt so admired William Howard Taff was he had brought A kind of benign and paternalistic Governorship To the Philippines And then he became secretary of war And it was under that department's Ages That the canal project Was administered And there was one point at which Taff was sent by Roosevelt For an investigative visit To the canal Was there any consequence of that That resulted in bringing A greater paternalism To the problems of the canal Or was that just part of the cosmetic That's the nine pro-conservative Role of the world of the Panama Don't know I don't have an answer to that I don't know if there were specific consequences Of Taff's visit I did see in my research That the U.S. officials Were really working hard At figuring out this issue Of administration and especially The issue of does the Constitution Follow the flag In other words what rights do people In the canal zone of Puerto Rico Where the Philippines have And that they were looking To a lot of different places To figure out the answer I think a lot more research Is needed to compare What the U.S. did in the Philippines of Puerto Rico and Panama Because it's clear that there were lessons Being drawn and circulating Among officials in the different Places I want to thank Julie Green Particularly for giving our morning Keynote that David Meyer for talking From Frank Barney for his Survey of the American Imperial Isolation of History I want to also say I think For Mr. Roosevelt to take it a few hits this morning But I'm sure he can survive this Sharon Kilser is the project manager For the field of Roosevelt Center She's very much responsible for the success Of all that we're doing here And she is the principal organizer Of these symposia Thank you so much Sharon