A Century of War - Lincoln, Wilson, & Roosevelt

by John V. Denson

The horrors of the twentieth century could hardly have been predicted in the nineteenth century, which saw the eighteenth century end with the American Revolution bringing about the creation of the first classical liberal government in history. The twentieth century was the bloodiest in all history. More than 170 million people were killed by government with 10 million having been killed in World War I and 50 million killed in World War II. Of the 50 million killed in World War II, nearly 70 percent were innocent civilians.

Genres: History, War, American History, Politics, Nonfiction

207 pages, Paperback and downloadable PDF

First published January 1, 2006

Reviews

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

I finished this book a few minutes ago and I have to say that I really enjoyed it for these reasons:

1) It's very short, easy to read, less than 200 pages.

2) The author quotes many of the leading revisionist historians on the particular subjects. Many of them being involved in academia.

3) The author compares views with other prominent historians such as Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who also believed that Lincoln and Roosevelt set dangerous precedents. Though, John says that "He(Arthur) attempts to justify the actions of both presidents on grounds that they were acting during a "crisis" pertaining to the "survival of the American government". John then quotes Arthur's passage, the one which led Jon to that conclusion:

"Both presidents took their actions in the light of day and to the accompaniment of uninhibited political debate. They did what they thought they had to do to save the republic. They threw themselves in the end on the justice of the country and the rectitude of their motives. Whatever Lincoln and Roosevelt felt compelled to do under the pressure of crisis did not corrupt their essential commitment to constitutional ways and democratic processes."
- Arthur Schlesinger Jr

Though, I would like to point out from this quote, I don't see how one can be sure whether Arthur is expressing his opinion or whether he truly believes that Lincoln and Roosevelt really thought that THEY were doing what is best for the country. Note: I do have Arthur's book, from which this quote was taken, "Imperial Presidency", on my shelf, I just haven't had time to read it. Reading this may answer that question.

There are a few other minor instances of things like this...while I wholeheartedly agree with what John is saying as I share the same sentiments as him.

4) A brief account of the Christmas Truce in WW1, an event that I wasn't aware of. Those few pages really touched my heart.

5) The Recommended Reading List at the end is of good size, 2 & 1/2 pages.

6) It's clear to me that John has read an enormous amount of history books. I recently encountered an interview where he says he tries to read so many a year, I can't recall the number. He reviewed 5 anti-war books for the Lew Rockwell Show, an audio podcast, here's the interview: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwel...

I'd like to add a Woodrow Wilson quote I found in the book on WW1, the citation is below as well:

"Why, my fellow-citizens, is there any man here, or any woman-let me say, is there any child here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry?...This war, in its inception, was a commercial and industrial war. It was not a political war."

[The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Arthur S. Link, ed. (Princeton, N.J..: Princeton University Press, 1990), vol 63, pp. 45-46.]

This quote seems to go right along with what the Socialist's were saying over and over again during WW1. I believe them to be right in that regard. But then again, they probably weren't the only ones pointing out these things.

That quote instantly made me think of words that I've heard in the movie "Reds" (1981). A very good, movie-like (historical fiction?) account of the Socialist movement's in the U.S. and in Russia.:
www.imdb.com/title/tt0082979/

Overall, this book is very well worth your money and your time. It may change your life, your political views, or at the very least question most of the things you've been taught. I will be on the lookout for more material from John, it was a pleasure to read.

[Huckleberry · Rating 1 out of 5]

Looking at it from the perspective of a historian and a writer, it's poorly written. 99% of his citations are of other peoples works, not the original source material. What that means to me is that what I'm reading is at the bare minimum someone's interpretation of someone's interpretation of events, and there could be quite a few more additional someone's in between. That's not to say good history cannot refer to other people's work at all, but the amount is something I'd expect from a college freshman. Furthermore, when you're trying to convince someone like me that everything they know if wrong, you'd better be able to back it up with more than "so-and-so said". Furthermore, he uses "furthermore" more than any other person in the entire world.

[Michael Remington · Rating 5 out of 5]

Should be required in school

Condensed follow the dots history that exposes the historical facts which have shaped our world.
It’s a shame this book has been buried and little known.

[Andrew Clark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although originally published in 2006, with the last few years’ agitation for war in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iran, and now Ukraine, John Denson’s book, A Century of War: Lincoln, Wilson & Roosevelt, is as timely as ever for showing us the methods and lies politicians use as pretext for war.

The book is a combination of a lecture given at the Mises Institute and various articles published at Mises.org or LewRockwell.com. Although it is only a bit over 200 pages, it is packed full of revisionist history--the good kind. Each chapter stands on its own, but together they are quite powerful in making the case against interventionist war and empire.

Chapter one serves as the introduction to John Denson’s book and was originally given as a lecture at the Mises Institute.

Chapters two through four are about Lincoln’s war, WWI (briefly), and America’s entry into WWII.

Chapter five compares Lincoln’s “treachery” and Roosevelt’s political manipulation, both used to get their enemies to fire the first shot and thus legitimize starting or entering their own particular conflict.

Denson uses the last two chapters to discuss American foreign policy in the 21st century, 9/11, and the subsequent American invasions of the Middle East, and then to highlight the absurdities of war by discussing the Christmas Truce of 1914 between British and German troops on the Western Front.

Like any good scholarly work, A Century of War contains generous (10 pages) bibliography and recommended reading sections, ranging from Lord Acton to Fareed Zakaria.


Chapter 1 - A Century of War

The main thrusts of this chapter are two-fold. The first is that if we are to prevent interventionist war the power of the state must be limited.

Denson states:

We should learn from the war and welfare century that the greatest discovery in Western civilization was that liberty could be achieved only through the proper and effective limitation on the power of the state. It is this limitation on the power of the state which protects private property, a free-market economy, personal liberties and promotes a noninterventionist foreign policy, which, if coupled with a strong national defense, will bring peace and prosperity instead of war and welfare. It is not democracy per se which protects freedom.

Denson’s second point is that it “will be more important than ever for intellectuals of the future to have a correct understanding of the philosophy of individual freedom and of free-market economics in order to fight collectivism in the twenty-first century.”

To the second point, I readily agree. Educating people in these principles is why Aaron and I blog, podcast, and engage with people in conversations about these important topics.

To the first point, however, I would dissent on the “strong national defense” piece. There is no limiting a state to defense only. Any state with a sufficiently “strong national defense” will eventually do what John Quincy Adams said America should not--go abroad “in search of monsters to destroy.” Even the act of providing said defense can only be had at the expense of the individual freedoms of those it is supposedly protecting.


Chapter 2 - Abraham Lincoln and the First Shot

The essence of this chapter will be no surprise to anyone who has read some real history (like Tom DiLorenzo’s The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War) concerning Lincoln and the so-called Civil War.

But Denson hones in on the details around the firing on Fort Sumter by the confederacy and provides such damning evidence of Lincoln’s duplicity and “treachery” that not even Jon Stewart and his panel of “experts” could refute the case.

Beginning in December 1860 and using primary sources, Denson gives us an almost daily chronicle of events leading up to the firing on the fort on April 12, 1861. Along the way he refutes the “mythology which has surrounded Lincoln”, particularly that he wanted to free the slaves and that he tried to prevent the war, by quoting Lincoln’s own words.

From Lincoln’s first inaugural address:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

And then to this part of the speech which the South considered to be a declaration of war:

The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

Denson continues by examining Lincoln’s acts as “America’s first dictator”, including his suspension of habeas corpus and the arrest and deportation of many of his opponents.

He ends with this, emphasis in original:

In summary, Lincoln brought about the “American System” envisioned by his hero Henry Clay, which included extremely high tariffs to protect Northern industry from foreign competition, internal improvements for Northern business from tax revenues collected primarily in the South, and a centralized federal government strong enough to be “aggressive abroad and despotic at home” as stated by Lee. None of this could have been achieved without destroying the American Republic created by the Founding Fathers, and this could not have been done without a war that excluded the South from Congress and then left this region prostrate from 1865 until the middle of the twentieth century--a century which saw Lincoln’s nation involved in two world wars with the German nation, which Bismarck had created.


Chapter 3 - The Calamity of World War I

If I have any major criticism of Denson’s book it would be about this chapter, which is a mere three pages dealing with “the war to end all wars”.

Instead of giving us some of his excellent revisionist history about WWI, Denson points us to Oxford professor Niall Ferguson’s book, The Pity of War, as an “iconoclastic attack on one of the most venerable patriotic myths of the British, namely that the First World War was a great and necessary war…”

I was quite disappointed in this chapter as a prelude to chapter four on the second world war, especially in light of the fact that Denson says in chapter four that “This unfair treaty [The Treaty of Versailles, which ended WWI] led directly to the resumption of war in 1939 between Germany, France, and Great Britain which evolved into WWII.”

Although Denson does include details about Wilson and WWI in chapter four, it is mostly about the end of the war and Wilson’s role in the Treaty of Versailles as a lead up to WWII.

This seems to be a bit of a cop out since Wilson’s name is on the cover.


Chapter 4 - Franklin D. Roosevelt and the First Shot

Denson comes out swinging in this chapter, combating the idea that WWII was a “just” or “noble” war because it was supposedly defensive, Pearl Harbor was supposedly unprovoked, and America was fighting Nazism and fascism.

He points out the hypocrisy in the “fact that Stalin and Soviet Russia were our allies and that we aided them with their oppression of millions of people during the war and thereafter is ignored.”

Denson documents how Roosevelt first tried to provoke a war directly with Germany by the passage of the Lend-Lease Act of 1941 which provided Britain, the USSR, and other Allied nations with war materiel.

Having been unsuccessful at getting Hitler to fire first on this front, Roosevelt turned to his backup plan: Japan.

The evidence of Roosevelt’s deception about Pearl Harbor is so overwhelming that “apologists” for him and his war are forced to argue thusly (p.103):

Typical of such apologists is Professor Thomas Bailey, a Stanford University historian of diplomatic relations, who declares.

Franklin Roosevelt repeatedly deceived the American people during the period before Pearl Harbor…. If he was going to induce the people to move at all, he would have to trick them into acting for their own best interests, or what he conceived to be their best interests. He was like the physician who must tell the patient lies for the patient’s own good….The country was overwhelmingly noninterventionist to the very day of Pearl Harbor and an overt attempt to lead the people into war would have resulted in certain failure and an almost certain ousting of Roosevelt in 1940, with a consequent defeat for his ultimate aims.

The last twenty pages of this chapter rely heavily on Robert Stinnett’s book Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor to paint the picture of Roosevelt deceiving the commanders in Pearl Harbor, Admiral Kimmel and General Short, the subsequent cover-up, and the scapegoating of Kimmel and Short after the fact. Stinnett relies on personal diaries as well as previously hidden documents which were kept secret in the Navy’s vault for over fifty years.

Denson concludes:

Stinnett’s book reveals the ugly truth of the crimes, if not treason, of President Roosevelt and leaves no doubt about how Roosevelt provoked the Japanese into firing the first shot and how he withheld essential information from his Pearl Harbor commanders that would have allowed them either to prevent the attack or protect themselves.


Chapter 5 - Lincoln and Roosevelt: American Caesars

In this chapter Denson compares Lincoln and Roosevelt on several fronts. Both men maneuvered their enemy into firing the first shot, so as to legitimize starting or entering a war, even though they had both already essentially, if not explicitly, declared war by other means.

Both men had ample time leading up to the “first shot” in which to negotiate with the enemy and avoid hostilities.

Both men had plenty of opportunity to present the case for war to the Congress and ask for a declaration of war. Neither did.

Denson also points out the economic interests and factors which played a role in both Lincoln and Roosevelt’s decisions to instigate war. In Lincoln’s case it was to “prevent the South from establishing a free-trade zone with a low tariff” which would would compete with Lincoln’s Union special interest groups. Denson correctly labels this as the “essence of fascism and the cause of many wars.”

In Roosevelt’s case, he was almost completely under the control of businessmen and bankers like Morgan and Rockefeller who wanted protection from their German and Japanese competitors.

Denson concludes:

Americans need to oppose and destroy the “imperial presidency” because of what it has already done and will do to our country and to our individual freedom. The first step toward that goal is to recognize Presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt for what they really were: American Caesars.


Chapter 6 - Another Century of War?

The title of this short chapter is taken from professor Gabriel Kolko’s 2002 book, Another Century of War?. Denson quotes Kolko exclusively to make the point that America’s global interventionism since 1947 has had the opposite effect to its stated goal.

It has only brought instability, death, destruction, and chaos to the world in general and those countries which America has invaded and occupied specifically.

Denson commends Kolko’s book to us as:

...a powerful warning to the politicians of “American Empire” about the dangers of hubris, or the arrogance of power, showing that we should abandon our interventionist foreign policy or suffer the same consequences as other empires (e.g., Athenian, Roman, Spanish and British) before us.


Chapter 7 - The Will To Peace

This chapter is only eight pages, but in my opinion, the most compelling and moving of all of them, and a perfect ending to this book.

Denson shares the story of the World War I Christmas Truce of 1914 between British and German troops through passages from Stanley Weintraub’s Silent Night: The Story of the World War I Christmas Truce.

The truce began on December 19th, 1914 when German troops left their trenches to recover their wounded. The British followed suit and ended up engaging in conversation with the Germans and then they both helped each other bury their dead.

Of course this type of “fraternization” was forbidden by, at least, the British commanders, but it did not deter the men.

On Christmas Eve, the Germans began putting up Christmas trees and offered a cease-fire, an offer taken up by the British. They sang Christmas carols together, recited the 23rd Psalm, played soccer together, and exchanged Christmas gifts. The truce continued for two weeks.

Weintraub quotes a soldier speaking of the activities of the truce: “Never...was I so keenly aware of the insanity of war.”

It is a shame that some men must first experience war before coming to this realization.


My Conclusion

This is a fantastic book. That I disagree with Denson’s advocacy of a strong national defense in no way takes away from the rest of his research and analysis. To the contrary, I suppose the fact that I’m miffed about the lack of his own content on WWI is perhaps an indication of the quality of his workmanship.

Denson’s book has been added to the standard reading curriculum in the Clark house.

It seems only fitting to end the review of a book rebuking the ideas of empire, war, and statism with thoughts from someone who witnessed the horrors of war firsthand and died needlessly in the midst of them.

In the final chapter, Denson quotes from part of famed British soldier and poet Wilfred Owen’s Dulce Et Decorum Est. Part of the title is taken from the ancient Roman poet Horace’s Odes. The entire line reads “dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” and is roughly translated as “It is sweet and fitting to die for your country.” Owen was shot and killed on November 4, 1918 attempting to cross the Sambre canal in northern France, one week before the signing of the armistice. Here is his entire poem.



DULCE ET DECORUM EST by WILFRED OWEN



Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.


Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!---An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime...
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.


In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.


If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,---
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

[Ryan Thornton · Rating 4 out of 5]

To start, I would like to assert what I believe the intention of this book is.
The intention is an introduction to a revisionist history.
In particular Lincoln and Roosevelt (and obviously Wilson, to some extent, though not as much.)
I believe that it accomplishes this task. It was fairly easy to read, especially for a book of this nature.

I’m not a historian but I’ve read a few books and pieces on this subject and I tend to agree with the authors perspective.

The main criticism I see is the fact that it uses mostly secondary sources as proof rather than primary sources. In some senses this is certainly a problem but one reason it doesn’t bother me much is that a good chunk of this book is quotes that serve one of two purposes: 1. To set the tone for the times he is discussing and the general beliefs of the people and advisors.
And
2. Appeals to authority.

In the case of 1 I think it was necessary because much of the defense of these so called great presidents is that they acted in the will of the people with their (the peoples) interest in mind, these quotes serve to refute that.

As for the 2nd reason I believe it’s understandable for a book this size. Sure, it’s a logical fallacy but only when that authority is not legitimate in this area. If he had cited other presidents or mathematicians or something that is an appeal to an (incorrect) authority. But his appeals are usually to historians who seem to have done the work.

The short and sweet of it is simple: this book is a great tool for finding the outline of the arguments against these wars and a great source for finding other books with similar thesis statements. It is an introduction.

[Diogo Jesus · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read the german translation, a gift to me, a memory which I cherish, from a travel on the german coast of the Baltic sea.
This book has the advantage of shreding the idealism of a goodness and pureness of America which after and during Lincoln was abandoned (if not before)
The major sins of this one are the revisionism (which in itself is not that bad) and a sympathy to a Germany which of course should not be only scorned but should never forget an age and ideas which brought the worse of mankind.
An enriching reading to develop a more critic view on the nowadays US of A but with poor fundaments to its claims. Good to shed a light on the subject, bad for its rush conclusions and complacency to which it shouldn´t at all.

[Gray · Rating 2 out of 5]

I recall reading this years ago when I was less skeptical of arguments that led to conclusions I was eager to believe. I wanted anti-establishment viewpoints to be true and so I sought out information for support. This book was such a support. However, my reading list has expanded and my scrutiny of arguments, especially ones outside the academic consensus, has deepened. This is an easy-to-read book that provides an alternate interpretation of large historical events. Read it with caution and supplement with more established information for the periods concerned. You will find this book very unpersuasive. As other reviewers have pointed out, almost all citations are from second- or third-hand accounts. That should be the first red flag.

[Scott Whaley]

The author makes arguments that are outside the mainstream of accepted history. History is written by the victor so I appreciate hearing alternate viewpoints and appreciate that what I generally hear from the victor's history may not be the full truth... But, I am not fully convinced by the authors arguments and documentation. Still, it's always good to hear additional viewpoints so I'm glad to read it.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book that dives into the awful history of American foreign policy from the Civil War through World War 2. Mr. Denson did reaffirm a lot of what I've previously read on the topic. The great excerpts and thorough research are evident from start to finish.

[Lawrence Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was not as extensive as I thought it would be, but still gives the reader a good primer on the War Between the States, and how the welfare/warfare state metastasized from there.

[Jenny Cardenas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very thought provoking and grabbed my attention right away.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until wealth is aggregated into the hands of a few and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of the war." Speech given by Lincoln after the civil war.

Its been said that war is the health of the state and this book sets out to show that the underlying reason for these wars was economics. Throughout the book the author examines the evidence and draws conclusions from the actions of Lincoln, Wilson & Roosevelt that aren't going to sit well with those who admire these Presidents. There is much to learn and challenge here, I probably underlined more of this book than any other book I have other than the Bible.

I served 10 years in the Marine Corps and I'm not against war but I found this book to make the case that what seems a good idea, in hindsight, showers us with many unintended consequences that wreak havoc on a country, becoming the very thing it used to despise. I believe man is capable of great evil, I believe the love of money and power can cause anyone to do just about anything. Therefore its not a leap to believe the whole story here.

[Bakunin · Rating 2 out of 5]

I found that the views expressed in the book were interesting but seeing as how the author tries to cover so much there was no room to delve deeper into the issues at hand. He also uses almost only secondary sources which I found a bit annoying as it showed how the author relied very much upon the opinion of others to prove his points.

All in all the analysis of the causes to both the american civil war, the first world war and the second were too shallow. The author often presupposes that the general view of academics is idiotic, even going as far as to call them court historians. I agree to a certain extent with this remark but I think that much more hard facts are needed to prove the point. For a better analysis of the first world war I would recommend Niall Fergusons book "the pity of war".

[Theodore · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'll admit it, I couldn't get through this book. It was written by a conspiracy theorist who relied on third-hand accounts for his assertions that 20th century American history, as we accept it to be, is all propaganda of the State.

Bottom line, if you are an anti-war, blame the West "revisionist" (Yes, I said it. The author spends in inordinate amount of paper in the Intro trying to convince the reader that accepted history, as accounted for by multiple experts from multiple backgrounds, is not the truth but in fact propaganda.) this is your book.

If you are a historian, one who prefers to read from first hand accounts and source documents, I urge you to stay away. That is, unless you want to spend the night with a pack of Rolaids.

[Candice · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book, John V. Denson compares Lincoln's entrance into the Civil War with Roosevelt's entrance into World War II. His thesis is that both men provoked their attacker so they would not be responsible for firing the first shot. This book is well documented and a great read for anyone trying to understand just why the Civil War broke out and why the United States entered into World War II.

"[T]he power of the presidency and the executive branch has led to deceit and corruption similar to the worst Caesars of Rome." (p.172)

[Brendan Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I greatly enjoyed reading this book. The author does a good job of taking in the whole picture of wars rather than just the approved stories behind them. Some reviewers have complained that he uses too many second hand sources. In my opinion this simply shows laziness. If something sounds outlandish to you, then track down the sources that the author clearly cites and decide for yourself if they are trustworthy. Simply writing this very important work off for that reason just proves that some people prefer just being spoon fed.

[Jared Lovell · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great place to start researching the real causes of the Civil War, WWI and WWII. Denson does a great job exposing how Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt maneuvered their enemies into firing the first shot and leading the nation in to senseless unnecessary wars. Highly recommend!

[Melodydiehl · Rating 3 out of 5]

The ideas were thought provoking and interesting, but the writing style was rather casual and the author didn't really cite primary sources. I feel like many of his claims warrant more direct sources.

[Dave · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book. Excellent reexamination of the way in which these presidents, often held up as heroes, colluded and deceived to bring the nation into needless and unwanted wars.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

A different perspective on the warmongering from Lincoln to FDR. Time for a sequel.