What do you think?
Rate this book
The War Lovers: Roosevelt, Lodge, Hearst, and the Rush to Empire, 1898
On February 15, 1898, the USS Maine exploded in the Havana Harbor. Although there was no evidence that the Spanish were responsible, yellow newspapers such as William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal whipped Americans into frenzy by claiming that Spain's "secret infernal machine" had destroyed the battleship. Soon after, the blandly handsome and easily influenced President McKinley declared war, sending troops not only to Cuba but also to the Philippines, Spain's sprawling colony on the other side of the world.
As Evan Thomas reveals in his rip-roaring history of those times, the hunger for war had begun years earlier. Depressed by the "closing" of the Western frontier and embracing theories of social Darwinism, a group of warmongers that included a young Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge agitated loudly and incessantly that the United States exert its influence across the seas. These hawks would transform American foreign policy and, when Teddy ascended to the presidency, commence with a devastating war without reason, concocted within the White House; a bloody conflict that would come at tremendous cost.
Thrillingly written and brilliantly researched, The War Lovers is the story of six men at the center of a transforming event in U.S. history; Roosevelt, Lodge, Hearst, McKinley, William James, and Thomas Reed, and confirms once more than Evan Thomas is a popular historian of the first rank.
As Evan Thomas reveals in his rip-roaring history of those times, the hunger for war had begun years earlier. Depressed by the "closing" of the Western frontier and embracing theories of social Darwinism, a group of warmongers that included a young Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge agitated loudly and incessantly that the United States exert its influence across the seas. These hawks would transform American foreign policy and, when Teddy ascended to the presidency, commence with a devastating war without reason, concocted within the White House; a bloody conflict that would come at tremendous cost.
Thrillingly written and brilliantly researched, The War Lovers is the story of six men at the center of a transforming event in U.S. history; Roosevelt, Lodge, Hearst, McKinley, William James, and Thomas Reed, and confirms once more than Evan Thomas is a popular historian of the first rank.
471 pages, Hardcover
First published April 27, 2010
142 people are currently reading
2307 people want to read
About the author
Evan Thomas
71 books379 followersEvan Thomas is the author of nine books: The Wise Men (with Walter Isaacson), The Man to See, The Very Best Men, Robert Kennedy, John Paul Jones, Sea of Thunder, The War Lovers, Ike’s Bluff, and Being Nixon. Thomas was a writer, correspondent, and editor for thirty-three years at Time and Newsweek, including ten years (1986–96) as Washington bureau chief at Newsweek, where, at the time of his retirement in 2010, he was editor at large. He wrote more than one hundred cover stories and in 1999 won a National Magazine Award. He wrote Newsweek’s fifty-thousand-word election specials in 1996, 2000, 2004 (winner of a National Magazine Award), and 2008. He has appeared on many TV and radio talk shows, including Meet the Press and The Colbert Report, and has been a guest on PBS’s Charlie Rose more than forty times. The author of dozens of book reviews for The New York Times and The Washington Post, Thomas has taught writing and journalism at Harvard and Princeton, where, from 2007 to 2014, he was Ferris Professor of Journalism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 201 reviews
January 25, 2023
Welcome to the Spanish-American War brought to you by our sponsors Roosevelt, Lodge, and Hearst! In this book, the author gives us a detailed look at the run-up to the war in Cuba and the Philippines in which the US took on the failing empire of Spain and was overcome with war fever in the name of Manifest Destiny which could also be defined as colonialism or as the poet Kipling said, "the white man's burden".
It was the time of yellow journalism and William Randolph Hearst was pushing hard for the "saving" of Cuba from Spanish rule with headlines that were for the most part, pure fiction. Although not a friend of Roosevelt, he played right into his hands, or vice-versa, as TR was also ready to go to war personally for glory, his and that of the United States. The elegant Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, one of TR's closest associates used his power in the government to influence and cajole his fellow Senators to join in the rush to a meaningless war When the USS Maine blew up in Havana harbor, "Remember the Maine" became the battle cry of the country and the war was on. (It appears through later investigation that the Maine incident had nothing to do with the Spanish but was a tragic accident).
President McKinley was maneuvered into declaring war on Spain and only one voice in the wilderness, Speaker of the House Thomas Reed, seemed to realize the problems that could arise from such a conflict. He was basically overwhelmed and eventually retired reluctantly from the House.
I was fascinated by this book and the writing style of the author was smooth and flowing. The last page of the book is somewhat ironic and often causes controversy. Highly recommended.
It was the time of yellow journalism and William Randolph Hearst was pushing hard for the "saving" of Cuba from Spanish rule with headlines that were for the most part, pure fiction. Although not a friend of Roosevelt, he played right into his hands, or vice-versa, as TR was also ready to go to war personally for glory, his and that of the United States. The elegant Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, one of TR's closest associates used his power in the government to influence and cajole his fellow Senators to join in the rush to a meaningless war When the USS Maine blew up in Havana harbor, "Remember the Maine" became the battle cry of the country and the war was on. (It appears through later investigation that the Maine incident had nothing to do with the Spanish but was a tragic accident).
President McKinley was maneuvered into declaring war on Spain and only one voice in the wilderness, Speaker of the House Thomas Reed, seemed to realize the problems that could arise from such a conflict. He was basically overwhelmed and eventually retired reluctantly from the House.
I was fascinated by this book and the writing style of the author was smooth and flowing. The last page of the book is somewhat ironic and often causes controversy. Highly recommended.
May 26, 2016
I approached this one with some reservations. Thomas is an inside-the-beltway talking head (or was), who would often show for the Saturday and Sunday political gab-fests. As I recall, I tended to like him better than most, but that's not saying much. He seemed rational. A moderate liberal was my take. Anyway, a lot of these types crank out popular historical books that are generally surface level treatments, and to some extent The War Lovers is no different. What elevates the book is that Thomas is a pretty good writer. It starts out a bit wobbly as he tries to make an Iraq comparison in the Introduction, seeing a parallel between that war and the National rush to war in the Spanish American War. I have no problems with taking Bush and crew to task, but I found the comparison both inexact and unnecessary for the book. After that, the book settles down nicely as Thomas presents the reader with several short and fascinating bios on Theodore Roosevelt, William Randolph Hearst, William James, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge (Roosevelt's BFF), and, the intriguing and Balzac loving Speaker of the House, Thomas Reed.
Lodge, Roosevelt, and Hearst are the "War Lovers" of the title, and all five were influenced by American Civil War. Roosevelt, in particular, who wanted to make up for his father's avoidance of the war by hired proxy. The "War Lovers" would all be heavily influenced by the desire to reinvigorate the Anglo Saxon race through war. I know, now it sounds insane, but it was a genuine movement, further reinforced in its toxicity by the also popular social darwinism and eugenic theories of the time. Those with strong reservations (Reid and James) would be trampled under foot or ignored in the rush to an incredibly stupid and unnecessary war.
The book aims to track the story through these various biographies, but Teddy quickly dominates the stage, and all balance goes out the window. Hearst is the only other character that gets significant coverage, probably because he saw TR as eventual competition in the political arena. Hearst had a huge ego and huge ambition, but he never had a chance against the Roughrider, who is something of a force of nature. A force with the temperament of seven year old one (as one TR critic once remarked), but a relentless one. Thomas closes his history with a final dig at Cheney and Scooter Libby (do people even remember him?). That was also unnecessary.
Lodge, Roosevelt, and Hearst are the "War Lovers" of the title, and all five were influenced by American Civil War. Roosevelt, in particular, who wanted to make up for his father's avoidance of the war by hired proxy. The "War Lovers" would all be heavily influenced by the desire to reinvigorate the Anglo Saxon race through war. I know, now it sounds insane, but it was a genuine movement, further reinforced in its toxicity by the also popular social darwinism and eugenic theories of the time. Those with strong reservations (Reid and James) would be trampled under foot or ignored in the rush to an incredibly stupid and unnecessary war.
The book aims to track the story through these various biographies, but Teddy quickly dominates the stage, and all balance goes out the window. Hearst is the only other character that gets significant coverage, probably because he saw TR as eventual competition in the political arena. Hearst had a huge ego and huge ambition, but he never had a chance against the Roughrider, who is something of a force of nature. A force with the temperament of seven year old one (as one TR critic once remarked), but a relentless one. Thomas closes his history with a final dig at Cheney and Scooter Libby (do people even remember him?). That was also unnecessary.
February 21, 2012
The War Lovers: Roosevelt, Lodge, Hearst, and the Rush to Empire, 1898 deserves 4 stars for the easy reading style and short, succinct chapters focused on a particular area. Thomas has an easy style and you can see his weekly magazine level of detail and rigor. This book gives a good overview of the times and players that lead to the Spanish-American War in 1898. You get a good, although not very deep, analysis of Teddy Roosevelt, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Speaker of the House Thomas “Czar” Reed, President McKinley, Publisher William Randolph Hearst, William James (philosopher and brother of novelist Henry) and a few other contemporaries.
The main focus is Roosevelt and his deep desire to personally get to war and test his mettle. Thomas alternates between painting Roosevelt as a scheming political hack or portraying him as an unusually active patriot who just really wants to serve his country. Clearly, there is guilt about Roosevelt’s father not serving in the Civil War, which has to be redeemed.
Speaker Reed and President McKinley stand out to me, although it may not have been the intention of Thomas to paint them quite so positively. Reed stands against the expansion to empire, refusing to allow a larger Navy to be built because he knows Roosevelt and others would use it. I admire Reed. McKinley also comes across as more shrewd and careful than I was aware. Mostly he is known for being shot and letting Roosevelt become President. There is more to McKinley than we are commonly aware.
I was somewhat disappointed in the portrait of Hearst, it seemed calculated to paint a despicable character. I wanted to see more of what was in Hearst’s background. He graduated from Harvard and wasn’t an idiot. Hearst's portrayal here is a bit thin, I think. We get plenty of background on Lodge, James, Roosevelt, et al but very little on Hearst. Yet he (and the other publishers like Pulitzer) are driving the nation to war. The episode with Evangelina Cisneros is certainly entertaining, personalize the story with a beautiful young thing at the mercy of the "brutish Spaniards"...and the nation goes for it hook line and sinker.
Lodge is better covered and stands out as a complex individual. I was uncertain why James was included in this group but he becomes a clear conscience against empire late in the story. He wasn’t crucial to this tale but interesting to learn about.
The main event, the Manila and Cuban expeditions are covered all too briefly. The Battle of Manila Bay is over in a flash. The invasion of Cuba takes a little longer to tell but really gets quickly to the attacks to capture Santiago. Undeniably, Roosevelt is brave in his leadership of his regiment into battle (the second time). As Roosevelt reaches the top of the San Juan heights, he encounters 2 Spanish soldiers and draws his pistol…Shooting a fleeing man may not have been exactly the heroic moment Roosevelt had yearned for, but he had at last stalked and killed that “most dangerous game.” He had proven his physical courage beyond all doubt. In the Darwinian terms he liked to employ, he had shaken off the torpor of overcivilization and tapped his innate savagery. “All men who feel any power of joy in battle,” Roosevelt would later write, “know what it is like when the wolf rises in the heart.”
After the battle, a couple of weeks go by before the Spanish capitulate. The Americans arrange for a ceremony in Santiago to mark the capitulation. What a poignant dispatch from the Cuban rebel General Calixto Garcia to the American General Shafter, when Garcia hears that he and his men will not be allowed to the surrender ceremony in Santiago because the Americans do not trust the rebels to behave:
A rumour, too absurd to be believed, ascribes the reason your measure and of the orders forbidding my army to enter Santiago, to fear of massacres and revenge against the Spaniards. Allow me, sir, to protest against even the shadow of such an idea. We are not savages, ignoring the rules of civilized warfare. We are a poor, ragged Army, as ragged and poor as the Army of your forefathers in their noble war for the Independence, but as the heroes of Saratoga and Yorktown, we respect too deeply our cause to disgrace it with barbarism and cowardice." The disdain and prejudice of the Americans against the local rebels prevailed.
The roles of Social Darwinism and Manifest Destiny are not delved into enough in my opinion. But also, the idea that expansionism at this time was solely an American fault is not correct. The entire Western world was engaged in rampant empire building and the influence of this is barely mentioned until the very end. One minor sour note is that Thomas tries somehow to intimate that the response to 9/11 is similar to the warmongering leading to the Spanish-American War. Yes, a war of choice in both cases. But I would say that the Gulf of Tonkin incident leading to the Vietnam War was closer to the sinking of the Maine leading to 1898.
This is a good book for a big picture overview of this era. The 1890’s, like the 1790’s, are an interesting yet less well known periods in U.S. history. Now I am on to more in depth study of the Philippine and Cuban excursions.
The main focus is Roosevelt and his deep desire to personally get to war and test his mettle. Thomas alternates between painting Roosevelt as a scheming political hack or portraying him as an unusually active patriot who just really wants to serve his country. Clearly, there is guilt about Roosevelt’s father not serving in the Civil War, which has to be redeemed.
Speaker Reed and President McKinley stand out to me, although it may not have been the intention of Thomas to paint them quite so positively. Reed stands against the expansion to empire, refusing to allow a larger Navy to be built because he knows Roosevelt and others would use it. I admire Reed. McKinley also comes across as more shrewd and careful than I was aware. Mostly he is known for being shot and letting Roosevelt become President. There is more to McKinley than we are commonly aware.
I was somewhat disappointed in the portrait of Hearst, it seemed calculated to paint a despicable character. I wanted to see more of what was in Hearst’s background. He graduated from Harvard and wasn’t an idiot. Hearst's portrayal here is a bit thin, I think. We get plenty of background on Lodge, James, Roosevelt, et al but very little on Hearst. Yet he (and the other publishers like Pulitzer) are driving the nation to war. The episode with Evangelina Cisneros is certainly entertaining, personalize the story with a beautiful young thing at the mercy of the "brutish Spaniards"...and the nation goes for it hook line and sinker.
Lodge is better covered and stands out as a complex individual. I was uncertain why James was included in this group but he becomes a clear conscience against empire late in the story. He wasn’t crucial to this tale but interesting to learn about.
The main event, the Manila and Cuban expeditions are covered all too briefly. The Battle of Manila Bay is over in a flash. The invasion of Cuba takes a little longer to tell but really gets quickly to the attacks to capture Santiago. Undeniably, Roosevelt is brave in his leadership of his regiment into battle (the second time). As Roosevelt reaches the top of the San Juan heights, he encounters 2 Spanish soldiers and draws his pistol…Shooting a fleeing man may not have been exactly the heroic moment Roosevelt had yearned for, but he had at last stalked and killed that “most dangerous game.” He had proven his physical courage beyond all doubt. In the Darwinian terms he liked to employ, he had shaken off the torpor of overcivilization and tapped his innate savagery. “All men who feel any power of joy in battle,” Roosevelt would later write, “know what it is like when the wolf rises in the heart.”
After the battle, a couple of weeks go by before the Spanish capitulate. The Americans arrange for a ceremony in Santiago to mark the capitulation. What a poignant dispatch from the Cuban rebel General Calixto Garcia to the American General Shafter, when Garcia hears that he and his men will not be allowed to the surrender ceremony in Santiago because the Americans do not trust the rebels to behave:
A rumour, too absurd to be believed, ascribes the reason your measure and of the orders forbidding my army to enter Santiago, to fear of massacres and revenge against the Spaniards. Allow me, sir, to protest against even the shadow of such an idea. We are not savages, ignoring the rules of civilized warfare. We are a poor, ragged Army, as ragged and poor as the Army of your forefathers in their noble war for the Independence, but as the heroes of Saratoga and Yorktown, we respect too deeply our cause to disgrace it with barbarism and cowardice." The disdain and prejudice of the Americans against the local rebels prevailed.
The roles of Social Darwinism and Manifest Destiny are not delved into enough in my opinion. But also, the idea that expansionism at this time was solely an American fault is not correct. The entire Western world was engaged in rampant empire building and the influence of this is barely mentioned until the very end. One minor sour note is that Thomas tries somehow to intimate that the response to 9/11 is similar to the warmongering leading to the Spanish-American War. Yes, a war of choice in both cases. But I would say that the Gulf of Tonkin incident leading to the Vietnam War was closer to the sinking of the Maine leading to 1898.
This is a good book for a big picture overview of this era. The 1890’s, like the 1790’s, are an interesting yet less well known periods in U.S. history. Now I am on to more in depth study of the Philippine and Cuban excursions.
March 2, 2022
Evan Thomas's The War Lovers is a workmanlike account of the Spanish-American War from the perspectives of the men most responsible for causing it. Thomas revisits the blood-and-thunder story of Theodore Roosevelt, William Randolph Hearst and other imperialists craving national greatness through a skeptical lens. Understandably so, and Thomas is often effective at skewering the overheated, jingoistic saber-rattling of these men who believed America's Manifest Destiny ought to extend beyond its shores. Roosevelt had a belief in America's "racial destiny" which will cause many modern readers to cringe; Hearst, one of the originators of "fake news," practically conjured the war himself to sell newspapers. (Thomas also tries to elevate a few other figures - Henry Cabot Lodge, Roosevelt's staunch political ally; antiwar Speaker of the House Jim Reed; and intellectual anti-imperialist William James - to co-protagonists, but their role in the story is ephemeral at best). All this is well and good, but Thomas's book generally feels pedestrian when it's not simplistic. Usually a decent writer when not apologizing for Richard Nixon, Thomas's book groans beneath obvious phrasing and surface-level insights that add little to our understanding of the period. The book breezes through the political build-up to the war, acting as if public clamor for expansion were a mere adjunct to its protagonist's will and the opposition to imperialism merely a footnote. The actual depiction of the fighting takes about 100 pages, with the familiar tales of the Rough Riders storming San Juan Hill rendered bathetically in a way that almost undermines Thomas's posturing. The book concludes with a brief but hamfisted comparison to the Iraq War which does little to illuminate either subject. The result is a decent introduction to its subject, but there are much better books on Roosevelt, Hearst and the war they nourished.
October 30, 2017
An eye-opening book about the men and events that played a role in turning the U.S. into a world power. I have read several books about the Spanish-American War so I knew about Hearst and Roosevelt's machinations, but this book adds an overview of others such Henry Cabot Lodge who supported the war, and Thomas Reed who opposed the imperialism that seemed to be overtaking the country.
Why would a man love war? For T.R. it was partly to make up for what he saw as his father's shameful behavior during the Civil War in purchasing a substitute instead of serving himself. But it was deeper than that. Patriotism, the need to challenge himself, and unfortunately a trait he seemed to share with many men thoughout the ages--a desire to fight and to kill 'his 'Spaniard.' Fearing that he would be left behind, Theodore Roosevelt did his utmost officially and personally to make sure he fought 'somebody.'
Not far behind T.R. in loving war was William Randolph Hearst, who spent his mother's money freely in order to fight 'his' war by using yellow journalism. That he never got to the battle made him bitter and jealous of T.R.'s fame.
I enjoyed this book and would recommend it to anyone wanting to learn about the steps this nation took in 1898, which still affect us today.
Why would a man love war? For T.R. it was partly to make up for what he saw as his father's shameful behavior during the Civil War in purchasing a substitute instead of serving himself. But it was deeper than that. Patriotism, the need to challenge himself, and unfortunately a trait he seemed to share with many men thoughout the ages--a desire to fight and to kill 'his 'Spaniard.' Fearing that he would be left behind, Theodore Roosevelt did his utmost officially and personally to make sure he fought 'somebody.'
Not far behind T.R. in loving war was William Randolph Hearst, who spent his mother's money freely in order to fight 'his' war by using yellow journalism. That he never got to the battle made him bitter and jealous of T.R.'s fame.
I enjoyed this book and would recommend it to anyone wanting to learn about the steps this nation took in 1898, which still affect us today.
August 27, 2025
A brisk and well-written history of the war, told through the experiences of Roosevelt, Lodge, Hearst, Thomas Reed, and William James.
Thomas argues that Hearst, Lodge and Roosevelt played active roles in precipitating the conflict. His portraits of them are rounded and vivid, but, unsurprisingly, Roosevelt and his overpowering personality takes up most of the space in the book; in this telling he comes off as arrogant, deceptive and sometimes downright insane. The inclusion of William James, a Harvard professor, is a little confusing since he has no part to play in the road to war, and he never really crosses paths with the other players.
There aren’t any new arguments or interpretations here, but Thomas does a good job rendering the atmosphere of the times, from Social Darwinism and American ideas about “manliness,” though sometimes this veers into psychoanalysis (there could have been some more coverage of the idea of Manifest Destiny). It can be jarring to read how casually these people talked about war and welcomed it. The narrative flows well and moves along at a good pace, and his portraits of the main players are insightful, if bordering on caricature at times.
The book is readable and engaging, but the ending is a bit awkward. Also, the book ends before the Philippine-American War; a strange choice for the modern author, given the parallels that could have been made (clumsily or not) The subject of global imperialism could have been given some more context (and the Monroe Doctrine, for that matter). Some readers may also wish for more discussion of controversies such as the explosion on the USS Maine. There is also little on the experiences of Spaniards, Cubans, or Filipinos, or Puerto Ricans, of you’re looking for that (the book is also based entirely on English-language sources)
Thomas also accepts some common stories about “yellow journalism,” such as Hearst’s alleged promise to “furnish the war,” in a telegram that has never been uncovered. Thomas’s source for this is James Creelman, one of Hearst’s reporters, who was in Europe at the time, and thus probably wouldn’t have known anything about this telegram. He also writes that another Hearst reporter, Carl Decker, broke Evangelina Cisneros out of a Havana prison by bribing the guards. Decker actually said he tried to bribe the guards, but failed. At one point the US ambassador to Madrid, Stewart Woodford, is called “Woodward.”
A lively and well-researched work.
Thomas argues that Hearst, Lodge and Roosevelt played active roles in precipitating the conflict. His portraits of them are rounded and vivid, but, unsurprisingly, Roosevelt and his overpowering personality takes up most of the space in the book; in this telling he comes off as arrogant, deceptive and sometimes downright insane. The inclusion of William James, a Harvard professor, is a little confusing since he has no part to play in the road to war, and he never really crosses paths with the other players.
There aren’t any new arguments or interpretations here, but Thomas does a good job rendering the atmosphere of the times, from Social Darwinism and American ideas about “manliness,” though sometimes this veers into psychoanalysis (there could have been some more coverage of the idea of Manifest Destiny). It can be jarring to read how casually these people talked about war and welcomed it. The narrative flows well and moves along at a good pace, and his portraits of the main players are insightful, if bordering on caricature at times.
The book is readable and engaging, but the ending is a bit awkward. Also, the book ends before the Philippine-American War; a strange choice for the modern author, given the parallels that could have been made (clumsily or not) The subject of global imperialism could have been given some more context (and the Monroe Doctrine, for that matter). Some readers may also wish for more discussion of controversies such as the explosion on the USS Maine. There is also little on the experiences of Spaniards, Cubans, or Filipinos, or Puerto Ricans, of you’re looking for that (the book is also based entirely on English-language sources)
Thomas also accepts some common stories about “yellow journalism,” such as Hearst’s alleged promise to “furnish the war,” in a telegram that has never been uncovered. Thomas’s source for this is James Creelman, one of Hearst’s reporters, who was in Europe at the time, and thus probably wouldn’t have known anything about this telegram. He also writes that another Hearst reporter, Carl Decker, broke Evangelina Cisneros out of a Havana prison by bribing the guards. Decker actually said he tried to bribe the guards, but failed. At one point the US ambassador to Madrid, Stewart Woodford, is called “Woodward.”
A lively and well-researched work.
May 28, 2025
The War Lovers is a spectacular vehicle for understanding the beginnings of the American age of imperialism generally and the Spanish-American War specifically. Evan Thomas should be commended for writing the book in a style that gets the readers hooked from the get-go and tells a true story in a way that keeps things flowing.
The main characters in The War Lovers are Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, president (the book largely takes place when he is Assistant Secretary of the Navy and then a colonel) Theodore Roosevelt, newspaperman William Randolph Hearst, Harvard professor and psychologist William James, and Speaker of the House from Maine Thomas Reed. It focuses almost exclusively on changes in U.S. foreign policy in the late 19th century.
The objective of the book is to demonstrate how men like Hearst used the Yellow Press to make Americans sympathetic to the nation moving towards a more interventionist, internationalist foreign policy (in this book, they blew atrocities out of proportion and used incidents like the U.S.S. Maine explosion to sway American public opinion on the side of intervening in the Spanish-American War). James tries to be largely unbiased, but it is he clear he found Roosevelt's bellicose opinions on war distasteful. He also writes about Speaker Reed's hesitancy to embrace the foreign policy adventurism of a T.R. or Lodge, casting him as an old school Republican who wants to embrace more of a Washingtonian strategy when it comes to overseas relations.
Thomas does a great job examining T.R.'s bromance with Lodge, detailing how their friendship and correspondence played a huge role in changing the way America presents itself worldwide (they wanted the U.S. to play the role of what in the 21st century many people call "world police".
Vivid descriptions, superb penmanship, and a wonderful summation of the Spanish-American War, a conflict many Americans today are largely unaware of, make this book highly recommendable.
-Andrew Canfield Denver/Broomfield Co.
The main characters in The War Lovers are Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, president (the book largely takes place when he is Assistant Secretary of the Navy and then a colonel) Theodore Roosevelt, newspaperman William Randolph Hearst, Harvard professor and psychologist William James, and Speaker of the House from Maine Thomas Reed. It focuses almost exclusively on changes in U.S. foreign policy in the late 19th century.
The objective of the book is to demonstrate how men like Hearst used the Yellow Press to make Americans sympathetic to the nation moving towards a more interventionist, internationalist foreign policy (in this book, they blew atrocities out of proportion and used incidents like the U.S.S. Maine explosion to sway American public opinion on the side of intervening in the Spanish-American War). James tries to be largely unbiased, but it is he clear he found Roosevelt's bellicose opinions on war distasteful. He also writes about Speaker Reed's hesitancy to embrace the foreign policy adventurism of a T.R. or Lodge, casting him as an old school Republican who wants to embrace more of a Washingtonian strategy when it comes to overseas relations.
Thomas does a great job examining T.R.'s bromance with Lodge, detailing how their friendship and correspondence played a huge role in changing the way America presents itself worldwide (they wanted the U.S. to play the role of what in the 21st century many people call "world police".
Vivid descriptions, superb penmanship, and a wonderful summation of the Spanish-American War, a conflict many Americans today are largely unaware of, make this book highly recommendable.
-Andrew Canfield Denver/Broomfield Co.
June 4, 2010
The War Lovers is not written for history students or professionals. This alone isn't a problem; understanding American history is not the property of any exclusive club. Both young adults and people who haven't been in a classroom in decades deserve access to history too. The question is whether The War Lovers succeeds among popular audiences, because as a technical achievement it fails.
Evan Thomas's thesis was to compare/contrast the careers of five American public figures, three hawks and two doves, during the so-called "rush to empire" of the late 1890s. The author loses track of two of these central figures (the doves) almost immediately, and in so doing misses his most valuable narrative opportunity: Contrasting the yellow press and the Anti-Imperialist League. Instead, a good 90% of the narrative revolves around the exploits of the hawks, and of that a disproportionate share of the attention goes to Theodore Roosevelt alone. The remaining 10% focuses more on fluff than philosophy.
Then there is the style. The introduction contains a paragraph that basically set my hairs on end. In one paragraph, Thomas writes the words "bitch goddess," "sturm und drang," and "puking" (though the last, to be fair, was a quote by one of the book's highlighted subjects). Such purple prose peppers the narrative, rendering The War Lovers more opinion than objective study. The fact that the type is set in near-giant print and every fourth page or so is covered by an illustration taking up 2/3 of the page means The War Lovers is really a 200 page book stretched into 400 pages with the sophomoric guile of a college freshman padding his four page research paper by increasing the sizes of the margins and spacing.
There is, at the heart of The War Lovers a well timed, play-by-play account of the action on Santiago de Cuba's camino real and the San Juan Heights. It is part Ken Burns, but more firmly modern History Channel style. Solid, if unoriginal. And Thomas's social commentary is mostly on point (if he lacks the empathy to actually undertstand Roosevelt's poorer moments). So all is not quite forfeit. But the value to be found is of a standard issue variety, tuned to general audiences not serious history students.
Evan Thomas's thesis was to compare/contrast the careers of five American public figures, three hawks and two doves, during the so-called "rush to empire" of the late 1890s. The author loses track of two of these central figures (the doves) almost immediately, and in so doing misses his most valuable narrative opportunity: Contrasting the yellow press and the Anti-Imperialist League. Instead, a good 90% of the narrative revolves around the exploits of the hawks, and of that a disproportionate share of the attention goes to Theodore Roosevelt alone. The remaining 10% focuses more on fluff than philosophy.
Then there is the style. The introduction contains a paragraph that basically set my hairs on end. In one paragraph, Thomas writes the words "bitch goddess," "sturm und drang," and "puking" (though the last, to be fair, was a quote by one of the book's highlighted subjects). Such purple prose peppers the narrative, rendering The War Lovers more opinion than objective study. The fact that the type is set in near-giant print and every fourth page or so is covered by an illustration taking up 2/3 of the page means The War Lovers is really a 200 page book stretched into 400 pages with the sophomoric guile of a college freshman padding his four page research paper by increasing the sizes of the margins and spacing.
There is, at the heart of The War Lovers a well timed, play-by-play account of the action on Santiago de Cuba's camino real and the San Juan Heights. It is part Ken Burns, but more firmly modern History Channel style. Solid, if unoriginal. And Thomas's social commentary is mostly on point (if he lacks the empathy to actually undertstand Roosevelt's poorer moments). So all is not quite forfeit. But the value to be found is of a standard issue variety, tuned to general audiences not serious history students.
February 22, 2020
This was a dull, dreary, dreadful read on history about five men from the 1890s, of which only two were war mongers - so a misnomer of a title.
January 11, 2023
I really enjoyed this book! Anything about Theodore Roosevelt intrigues me and I find this time period in American history to be fascinating. Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge pushed for an American war to galvanize the nation, a nation which TR thought was becoming "over-civilized" and needed to let "the wolf rise in the heart." Thomas Reed and philosopher William James, on the other hand, did not see the necessity for going to war and Reed, as Speaker of the House, would do all he could to prevent such a dire mistake. And then we have William Randolph Hearst, brazen owner of the New York Journal, manipulator and agitator extraordinaire, printing headline after headline of war fever and foreign slights, real or unreal, to churn the militant spirit within his readers and the country at large. If the politicians wouldn't declare war, he would. Evan Thomas takes an intelligent and honest look at America's hasty charge to war in 1898 through these five main characters and their cohorts, and he does so with a fast-paced narrative and thoughtful analysis.
While Roosevelt dominates any story he's in, and he does so again here, I found the most entertaining and appealing person to be Thomas Brackett Reed, the Czar. His integrity, his steadfastness, and devotion to country I find endearing, but his biting wit to be the most memorable of his qualities. I hadn't heard much about him before, and perhaps because his presidential aspirations never panned out and his attempts to stop the war lovers from starting a fight with Cuba were thwarted, he never received the renown I think he deserves.
Evan Thomas has a great one here, a wonderful work of history.
While Roosevelt dominates any story he's in, and he does so again here, I found the most entertaining and appealing person to be Thomas Brackett Reed, the Czar. His integrity, his steadfastness, and devotion to country I find endearing, but his biting wit to be the most memorable of his qualities. I hadn't heard much about him before, and perhaps because his presidential aspirations never panned out and his attempts to stop the war lovers from starting a fight with Cuba were thwarted, he never received the renown I think he deserves.
Evan Thomas has a great one here, a wonderful work of history.
June 1, 2010
The consequences of wars of choice as seen through the prism of the Spanish American War, and several of its most notable personalities - Theodore Roosevelt, the elder Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, the philosopher William James, newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst, and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Thomas Brackett ("Czar") Reed.
Evan Thomas, author of a succession of best-selling political biographies, has created an exhaustively researched narrative that shows how wars often start specifically because powerful individuals want them to; not because of a threat to national security, but for a mix of psychological, political, and economic reasons. All of the principals possessed common social and cultural prejudices which tainted the original urgency in "liberating" the Cuban and Filipino peoples. "Manifest Destiny," or the belief that America was destined to expand its hegemony across the North American continent, eventually satisfies that need.
Thomas indicates how Theodore Roosevelt was privately shamed by his father's having purchased a "substitute" to serve for him during the Civil War, and this, as much as anything else, drove T.R. Jr. to prove his manliness in wartime. Whether he was involved in N.Y. City machine politics, or charging up San Juan Hill, T.R. was determined to succeed to settle accounts on behalf of his father. As Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt turned the February, 1898 sinking of the U.S. Battleship "Maine" in Havana Harbor into a cause for war against Spain - though it has always been widely believed that the ship sunk because of an accidental explosion. In Cuba, Roosevelt hoped to achieve his "crowded hour" - a reference from Sir Walter Scott's "Ivanhoe": "One crowded hour of glorious life is worth an age without a name."
Roosevelt despised the so-called "mugwumps" or "Goo Goos" - the Boston "Brahmin" reformers who filled Gilded Age drawing rooms and private clubs with hot air and platitudes. The Harvard philosopher William James, though admittedly a member of this fraternity, is shown to be more enlightened and insightful than many of his colleagues. In an era where academia propounded psudo-scientific theories about racial and cultural supremacies and inferiorities, James was exceptional in his more egalitarian views. His friend and ally, Maine Representative and House Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed, a witty and skillful parliamentarian, is likewise shown to be thoughtful on the war question, though even for all his power and influence, he eventually becomes tragically consumed by the tsunami of public opinion favoring the invasion of Cuba. Reed was initially friendly with Roosevelt as well as his mentor, Massachusetts senator Henry Cabot Lodge, until the war question permanently divided them.
William Randolph Hearst, publisher of the New York "Journal," suffers probably the worst treatment of all. Here he is revealed to be a foppish, socially challenged mama's boy who used his mother's wealth to underwrite a flotilla of yachts for traveling to the war front, and employed the worst variety of yellow journalism to whip up public opinion in favor of the incursion. Sporting both navy blazer and yachting cap, he and his entourage proceed to picnic at the battle scenes - which are replete with silverware and china. The icing on the cake is that he is described as soft, with an even softer handshake and a "soprano voice." The "Journal," for its part, was the worst sort of yellow press - manipulating facts, freely pilfering stories from other publications, and printing outright falsehoods - all in the interest of boosting circulation and covering Hearst's debts, which were considerable.
Thomas writes clearly and incisively on the denouement of the war. His depiction of the Spanish fleet is positively tear-jerking in its detail - American sailors, upon boarding a defeated Spanish ship, discover that its crew, drunk on brandy, had mutinied, and the "stokers" in the boiler room had been shot for shirking. Even in surrender, the captain of one Spanish vessel had to apologize for not being able to answer the cannon-salute of his conqueror: he had run out of gun powder.
But the final lesson is one that resonates through the ages: the American empire-builders who had made the liberation of the Cuban revolutionaries their main focus, weren't even modestly interested in their welfare; in fact, the leader of the Cubans, Gen. Calixto Garcia and his army weren't even permitted to attend the formal surrender ceremony in Santiago because in the mind of one American officer, "they couldn't be trusted to behave."
Roosevelt, following the war, proceeds to seek (and win) the governorship of New York. He even campaigns in his "Rough Riders" uniform - the one he used in the war. He's ultimately victorious, and is later asked to be Vice President under William McKinley - himself a tragic figure who was initially against war, but later felt compelled to acquiesce to public pressure in undertaking it. When he falls victim to an assassin's bullet in 1901, Roosevelt succeeds him in the White House. Following Roosevelt's second term, both he and Lodge fight the establishment of the "League of Nations" proposed by President Woodrow Wilson, whom they both loathed. But Roosevelt's taste for war suffers a mortal blow when his son Quentin's plane is shot down near the end of World War I. Roosevelt even places the mangled propeller of his son's plane over the fireplace mantle at their Oyster Bay, N.Y. home - where T.R. would spend hours sitting alone, murmuring repetitively, "Quenty, Quenty." It is the very sad conclusion to what twenty years earlier had been an unbridled passion for war and empire. What it says about war folly in all its forms is the overriding theme of this excellent book and one we might seek to learn from as we honor our valiant veterans this Memorial Day.
Evan Thomas, author of a succession of best-selling political biographies, has created an exhaustively researched narrative that shows how wars often start specifically because powerful individuals want them to; not because of a threat to national security, but for a mix of psychological, political, and economic reasons. All of the principals possessed common social and cultural prejudices which tainted the original urgency in "liberating" the Cuban and Filipino peoples. "Manifest Destiny," or the belief that America was destined to expand its hegemony across the North American continent, eventually satisfies that need.
Thomas indicates how Theodore Roosevelt was privately shamed by his father's having purchased a "substitute" to serve for him during the Civil War, and this, as much as anything else, drove T.R. Jr. to prove his manliness in wartime. Whether he was involved in N.Y. City machine politics, or charging up San Juan Hill, T.R. was determined to succeed to settle accounts on behalf of his father. As Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt turned the February, 1898 sinking of the U.S. Battleship "Maine" in Havana Harbor into a cause for war against Spain - though it has always been widely believed that the ship sunk because of an accidental explosion. In Cuba, Roosevelt hoped to achieve his "crowded hour" - a reference from Sir Walter Scott's "Ivanhoe": "One crowded hour of glorious life is worth an age without a name."
Roosevelt despised the so-called "mugwumps" or "Goo Goos" - the Boston "Brahmin" reformers who filled Gilded Age drawing rooms and private clubs with hot air and platitudes. The Harvard philosopher William James, though admittedly a member of this fraternity, is shown to be more enlightened and insightful than many of his colleagues. In an era where academia propounded psudo-scientific theories about racial and cultural supremacies and inferiorities, James was exceptional in his more egalitarian views. His friend and ally, Maine Representative and House Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed, a witty and skillful parliamentarian, is likewise shown to be thoughtful on the war question, though even for all his power and influence, he eventually becomes tragically consumed by the tsunami of public opinion favoring the invasion of Cuba. Reed was initially friendly with Roosevelt as well as his mentor, Massachusetts senator Henry Cabot Lodge, until the war question permanently divided them.
William Randolph Hearst, publisher of the New York "Journal," suffers probably the worst treatment of all. Here he is revealed to be a foppish, socially challenged mama's boy who used his mother's wealth to underwrite a flotilla of yachts for traveling to the war front, and employed the worst variety of yellow journalism to whip up public opinion in favor of the incursion. Sporting both navy blazer and yachting cap, he and his entourage proceed to picnic at the battle scenes - which are replete with silverware and china. The icing on the cake is that he is described as soft, with an even softer handshake and a "soprano voice." The "Journal," for its part, was the worst sort of yellow press - manipulating facts, freely pilfering stories from other publications, and printing outright falsehoods - all in the interest of boosting circulation and covering Hearst's debts, which were considerable.
Thomas writes clearly and incisively on the denouement of the war. His depiction of the Spanish fleet is positively tear-jerking in its detail - American sailors, upon boarding a defeated Spanish ship, discover that its crew, drunk on brandy, had mutinied, and the "stokers" in the boiler room had been shot for shirking. Even in surrender, the captain of one Spanish vessel had to apologize for not being able to answer the cannon-salute of his conqueror: he had run out of gun powder.
But the final lesson is one that resonates through the ages: the American empire-builders who had made the liberation of the Cuban revolutionaries their main focus, weren't even modestly interested in their welfare; in fact, the leader of the Cubans, Gen. Calixto Garcia and his army weren't even permitted to attend the formal surrender ceremony in Santiago because in the mind of one American officer, "they couldn't be trusted to behave."
Roosevelt, following the war, proceeds to seek (and win) the governorship of New York. He even campaigns in his "Rough Riders" uniform - the one he used in the war. He's ultimately victorious, and is later asked to be Vice President under William McKinley - himself a tragic figure who was initially against war, but later felt compelled to acquiesce to public pressure in undertaking it. When he falls victim to an assassin's bullet in 1901, Roosevelt succeeds him in the White House. Following Roosevelt's second term, both he and Lodge fight the establishment of the "League of Nations" proposed by President Woodrow Wilson, whom they both loathed. But Roosevelt's taste for war suffers a mortal blow when his son Quentin's plane is shot down near the end of World War I. Roosevelt even places the mangled propeller of his son's plane over the fireplace mantle at their Oyster Bay, N.Y. home - where T.R. would spend hours sitting alone, murmuring repetitively, "Quenty, Quenty." It is the very sad conclusion to what twenty years earlier had been an unbridled passion for war and empire. What it says about war folly in all its forms is the overriding theme of this excellent book and one we might seek to learn from as we honor our valiant veterans this Memorial Day.
August 17, 2010
I borrowed this book from my dad, who told me that there was a great parallel to the Iraq War at the end of the book. I waited, waited, and waited and it did not come until the final paragraph. The book was 4 stars throughout, but the final paragraph pushes it to 5 (do yourself a favor and make sure NOT to read the paragraph before you've read the book or it will ruin the experience.)
Being a big history nerd, I really liked this book. It focuses on Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and William Randolph Hearst (House Speaker Thomas Reed and Harvard thinker William James are also prominent throughout) during the frenzy for war against Spain in the final years of the 19th century. Drawing from correspondence and newspaper reports, Thomas paints a portrait of a country whose leaders were divided on going to war with Spain over Cuba. The hawks eventually won and the story takes a turn to follow Roosevelt and Hearst through their Cuban adventures.
The parallels to the Iraq War are there, but the reader needs to infer them for him/herself. Again, the last paragraph is history gold (platinum even) and you would be doing yourself a disfavor by cheating and looking at it before getting there organically. Great book and a great read.
Being a big history nerd, I really liked this book. It focuses on Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and William Randolph Hearst (House Speaker Thomas Reed and Harvard thinker William James are also prominent throughout) during the frenzy for war against Spain in the final years of the 19th century. Drawing from correspondence and newspaper reports, Thomas paints a portrait of a country whose leaders were divided on going to war with Spain over Cuba. The hawks eventually won and the story takes a turn to follow Roosevelt and Hearst through their Cuban adventures.
The parallels to the Iraq War are there, but the reader needs to infer them for him/herself. Again, the last paragraph is history gold (platinum even) and you would be doing yourself a disfavor by cheating and looking at it before getting there organically. Great book and a great read.
November 12, 2020
Evan Thomas does a very nice job at describing the lead-up and aftermath of the Spanish-American War through the biographies of five major American figures: Teddy Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, William Randolph Hearst, William James, and Congressman Thomas Brackett Reed. These five ran the gamut from warmongering hawks to pacifist doves. Along the way, we get a lot of glimpses at other characters as they bounced off these five: McKinley, Frederic Remington, Henry Adams, Edith Roosevelt, Admiral Dewey, and many others who may or may not be familiar to the reader, but who played an important role in the conflict.
To my mind, I think the Spanish-American War is underrepresented in our history--although one can point to many watershed moments, 1898 seems to me to be the one you rarely hear about. America was one sort of country before that, and another sort on the other side, and it's affected our perception of who we are ever since. I don't think we were better for it.
If anything represents the idea of the Spanish-American War, it's probably the image of Teddy Roosevelt leading the charge up San Juan Hill (which was actually Kettle Hill). Perhaps they may also remember the sinking of the Maine. A few more may know that the war changed America from a nation content within it's own borders to an imperial contender--very few probably know the cost.
I think Thomas' treatment here is pretty fair--one may come away with a much different opinion of Teddy Roosevelt than before, and an admiration for a man unfairly forgotten by history, Thomas Brackett Reed. I suspect that was Thomas's hope--that the facts would not so much revise history as simply set the record straight. One might also leave the book rather disgusted by the impulses that led to war in the first place--think our media is biased now? They are the soul of discretion compared to Hearst.
Although I already had an opinion about the war before I started the book, Thomas reinforced it--but it is still a little depressing to realize that although one might have thought that this period had at least a few positive aspects, that really isn't supported by the record. It was a war fueled by outsized egos bent on self-aggrandizement at the cost of thousands of casualties and prolonged misery. Like every war that begins with what seems like a good reason, the butcher's bill always seems to high. Worse, we became a different nation after the war, and one which continues to make many of the same mistakes. Recommended.
To my mind, I think the Spanish-American War is underrepresented in our history--although one can point to many watershed moments, 1898 seems to me to be the one you rarely hear about. America was one sort of country before that, and another sort on the other side, and it's affected our perception of who we are ever since. I don't think we were better for it.
If anything represents the idea of the Spanish-American War, it's probably the image of Teddy Roosevelt leading the charge up San Juan Hill (which was actually Kettle Hill). Perhaps they may also remember the sinking of the Maine. A few more may know that the war changed America from a nation content within it's own borders to an imperial contender--very few probably know the cost.
I think Thomas' treatment here is pretty fair--one may come away with a much different opinion of Teddy Roosevelt than before, and an admiration for a man unfairly forgotten by history, Thomas Brackett Reed. I suspect that was Thomas's hope--that the facts would not so much revise history as simply set the record straight. One might also leave the book rather disgusted by the impulses that led to war in the first place--think our media is biased now? They are the soul of discretion compared to Hearst.
Although I already had an opinion about the war before I started the book, Thomas reinforced it--but it is still a little depressing to realize that although one might have thought that this period had at least a few positive aspects, that really isn't supported by the record. It was a war fueled by outsized egos bent on self-aggrandizement at the cost of thousands of casualties and prolonged misery. Like every war that begins with what seems like a good reason, the butcher's bill always seems to high. Worse, we became a different nation after the war, and one which continues to make many of the same mistakes. Recommended.
March 9, 2010
While I understand an author's desire to link his or her historical study to modern events, on occasion the effort can feel either like over-reach or overwrought. Evan Thomas's "The War Lovers: Roosevelt, Lodge, Hearst, and the Rush to Empire, 1898" is a case on point - from the opening invocation of water boarding in the Philippines a hundred years ago, to the closing image of Scooter Libby toiling away to get his boss Dick Cheney the war he craved, we are supposed to recognize the threads that bind the Spanish-American War with President Bush's Middle Eastern adventures. To be fair there exist some similarities between the two wars - both done of choice, both illuminated by a faith in American exceptionalism, both thought with out sufficient consideration of what would come after, - but these are quite besides the point and feel like mere dross on an otherwise fine piece of history.
Thomas examines the events leading up to the war in a series of comparative biographies that go beyond the three men mentioned in the title, and include the public intellectual William James, who struggles to understand and experience the emotions pulling the nation towards war, and Speaker of the House Thomas Reed, who understood the long term threat a colonial enterprise would be to American identity and culture. The contrast between the characters, despite the similarity of their background (all Harvard men, all besides Reed to the manner born), these men come to radically different understandings of what is the "right" path for America to follow.
Roosevelt, larger than life in so many ways, fills this work's narrative much as he filled every room he entered. His motivations, based in 19th century eugenics and a perfect confidence in the superiority of the "Anglo-Saxon race" and his desire for personal glory, are interesting, though over the course of the book they drag, Roosevelt simply being neither interesting nor complex enough a character to hold one's attention for 400 pages. Lodge likewise, narrowly raised and to the modern reader reactionary in his views, likewise doesn't offer any real tension. Yet, it is these two men (along with the more interesting Hearst) who receive the lions share of attention.
Reed and James are far more interesting, both men born of an old world struggling to understand what the future holds beyond dreams of vistas of endless glories and the "threat" of racial dilution. Lacking Roosevelt and Lodges sense of entitlement - whether personal or national - both come to life on the page as complex men, at times even tortured.
As for the conflict itself, there just isn't that much of interest to the Spanish American War, which lasted less than a year. Military buffs may find it worthy of study, but that would likely be in a different book. Perhaps most disappointing of all, Thomas never mines the wealth of potential for a serious contrast between that war and those in which the US is currently enmeshed. Comparisons between the way Hearst beat the drumbeat of war and the modern media doing the same after 9/11 are completely absent. Likewise lacking is a discussion is the possible reasons and ramifications of America's brief attention span and the ease with which we can disown a policy once wildly popular. What connections are offered feel like forced ornaments meant to provoke interest rather than organic parts of the text.
In the end, "The War Lovers" neither sparkles nor crashes. It is a fine, readable volume which would offer insights to someone unfamiliar with the period and perhaps a pleasant distraction to one well read in its subject.
Thomas examines the events leading up to the war in a series of comparative biographies that go beyond the three men mentioned in the title, and include the public intellectual William James, who struggles to understand and experience the emotions pulling the nation towards war, and Speaker of the House Thomas Reed, who understood the long term threat a colonial enterprise would be to American identity and culture. The contrast between the characters, despite the similarity of their background (all Harvard men, all besides Reed to the manner born), these men come to radically different understandings of what is the "right" path for America to follow.
Roosevelt, larger than life in so many ways, fills this work's narrative much as he filled every room he entered. His motivations, based in 19th century eugenics and a perfect confidence in the superiority of the "Anglo-Saxon race" and his desire for personal glory, are interesting, though over the course of the book they drag, Roosevelt simply being neither interesting nor complex enough a character to hold one's attention for 400 pages. Lodge likewise, narrowly raised and to the modern reader reactionary in his views, likewise doesn't offer any real tension. Yet, it is these two men (along with the more interesting Hearst) who receive the lions share of attention.
Reed and James are far more interesting, both men born of an old world struggling to understand what the future holds beyond dreams of vistas of endless glories and the "threat" of racial dilution. Lacking Roosevelt and Lodges sense of entitlement - whether personal or national - both come to life on the page as complex men, at times even tortured.
As for the conflict itself, there just isn't that much of interest to the Spanish American War, which lasted less than a year. Military buffs may find it worthy of study, but that would likely be in a different book. Perhaps most disappointing of all, Thomas never mines the wealth of potential for a serious contrast between that war and those in which the US is currently enmeshed. Comparisons between the way Hearst beat the drumbeat of war and the modern media doing the same after 9/11 are completely absent. Likewise lacking is a discussion is the possible reasons and ramifications of America's brief attention span and the ease with which we can disown a policy once wildly popular. What connections are offered feel like forced ornaments meant to provoke interest rather than organic parts of the text.
In the end, "The War Lovers" neither sparkles nor crashes. It is a fine, readable volume which would offer insights to someone unfamiliar with the period and perhaps a pleasant distraction to one well read in its subject.
May 6, 2010
Oh golly. You’ve got to read this book (“The War Lovers,” Evan Thomas).
Here, in a starring role, is Theodore Roosevelt cast in a light other biographers have missed or neglected, TR, a war lover who avers he would leave his wife’s deathbed to answer a call to battle. Roosevelt stars opposite Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, an important, neglected figure in American annals and - as few have known - a close and constant friend of Roosevelt, as Roosevelt was also of Lodge. The third of the war lovers, a contemporary although not a friend, is William Randolph Hearst, outfitted in bizarre costumes, building his publishing empire and conniving to stir a war with letters three-inches high. A compelling trio.
But there is more. In a significant supporting role is Thomas (Czar) Reed, commanding speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, a fascinating man for contemporary times who comes to break a friendship with Roosevelt and Lodge over the issues of unjustified war and emerging American imperialism. In another important role is William James, reflecting, reflecting on his emerging, tumultuous homeland. Prominent attention is paid Henry Adams, in residence opposite the White House and keeping close watch. There are insightful stories of Charles Russell Lowell and Josephine Shaw (Effie) Lowell.
Then there are cameo appearances, some fleeting, some extended: Robert Gould Shaw; Richard Harding Davis; Owen Wister; Frederic Remington; Clara Barton, Emilio Aguinaldo, leader of the Philippine insurgents; Alice Roosevelt, E.L. Godkin; Gen. Maximo Gomez, leader of the Cuban insurgents; Edith Roosevelt and her boys, Lizzie Cameron, Louis Armstrong, TR Jr.; Commodore George Dewey; Walter Lippmann; Queen Liliuokalani; the Oliver Wendell Holmeses, Sr., and Jr.; Gen. William Shafter; Henry Longfellow; William McKinley; Julia Ward Howe. Everyone singing, “Hot Time in the Old Town Tonight.”
Plus: Evan Thomas gives an updated, in-the-trenches recounting of the U.S. war with Spain which is as fine as anything done with that war.
A thrilling book.
Oh - what's it about? Three influential men resolved to have the United States be caught up in a war. Any war. Maybe even an invasion of Canada. Finally, war comes.
Here, in a starring role, is Theodore Roosevelt cast in a light other biographers have missed or neglected, TR, a war lover who avers he would leave his wife’s deathbed to answer a call to battle. Roosevelt stars opposite Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, an important, neglected figure in American annals and - as few have known - a close and constant friend of Roosevelt, as Roosevelt was also of Lodge. The third of the war lovers, a contemporary although not a friend, is William Randolph Hearst, outfitted in bizarre costumes, building his publishing empire and conniving to stir a war with letters three-inches high. A compelling trio.
But there is more. In a significant supporting role is Thomas (Czar) Reed, commanding speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, a fascinating man for contemporary times who comes to break a friendship with Roosevelt and Lodge over the issues of unjustified war and emerging American imperialism. In another important role is William James, reflecting, reflecting on his emerging, tumultuous homeland. Prominent attention is paid Henry Adams, in residence opposite the White House and keeping close watch. There are insightful stories of Charles Russell Lowell and Josephine Shaw (Effie) Lowell.
Then there are cameo appearances, some fleeting, some extended: Robert Gould Shaw; Richard Harding Davis; Owen Wister; Frederic Remington; Clara Barton, Emilio Aguinaldo, leader of the Philippine insurgents; Alice Roosevelt, E.L. Godkin; Gen. Maximo Gomez, leader of the Cuban insurgents; Edith Roosevelt and her boys, Lizzie Cameron, Louis Armstrong, TR Jr.; Commodore George Dewey; Walter Lippmann; Queen Liliuokalani; the Oliver Wendell Holmeses, Sr., and Jr.; Gen. William Shafter; Henry Longfellow; William McKinley; Julia Ward Howe. Everyone singing, “Hot Time in the Old Town Tonight.”
Plus: Evan Thomas gives an updated, in-the-trenches recounting of the U.S. war with Spain which is as fine as anything done with that war.
A thrilling book.
Oh - what's it about? Three influential men resolved to have the United States be caught up in a war. Any war. Maybe even an invasion of Canada. Finally, war comes.
December 21, 2021
I found this to be an interesting book both historically and relationally. Historically because of how each of these great icons, if you will, were such war mongers: Roosevelt for power & prestige, Lodge for power, and Hearst for power and money. There was a close relationship between Roosevelt and Lodge. Where as Hearst sought power and money through his publications and both Roosevelt & Lodge held Hearst in contempt. A regular three ring circus of proportions only noticed on Payton Place...I may be dating myself with that quip. If you are a history buff, especially with respect to the USS Maine and the Spanish-American War's outbreak, this is a worthy book to read!
September 16, 2013
Teddy Roosevelt is totally one of my historical boyfriends, but even I have to admit, the man was a bit war-mad. I wouldn't go so far as to argue that the Spain-American War wouldn't have happened without his involvement and role in encouraging the tensions, but he did nothing to prevent that war, indeed did everything he could do encourage it.
That he wasn't alone in this is the subject of this book. America has a somewhat dubious track-record of 'inventing' causes for war or manipulating situations to create a cause - 'Remember the Maine!' can sit quite comfortably alongside the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, or indeed September 11th if one wants to be truly controversial. There were definitely parties in America that wanted Spain out of Cuba; whether because they truly desired freedom for Cuba or freedom for America to operate in Cuba is almost immaterial. Certain individuals in America, the American press and a large portion of the American public wanted a war - one almost gets the sense that almost any war would have done.
This admirable book concerns the activities of three individuals in encouraging the declaration of war - Teddy Roosevelt, for one, in his role of Assistant Secretary of the Navy; Henry Cabot Lodge, TR's great friend and Senator for Massachusetts; William Randolph Hearst, editor of the New York Journal and one of the fathers of 'yellow journalism', or what we might today think of as the tabloid press; and three who fought across the war-fever sweeping the country - President McKinley, who was easily influenced and gave into pressure to declare war after the explosion of the Maine in Havana Harbour, blamed on the Spanish but almost certainly an accident; William James, brother of Henry James, a lecturer at Harvard and influential philosopher and psychologist; and William Reed, Speaker of the House.
The Spanish-American War wasn't quite the start of America as an imperial power (arguably that came with a similarly trumped up war against Mexico in the 1840s) but it brought with it Guam, the Philippines and Puerto Rico as American possessions, and it paved the way for the expansion of America's armed forces and served as a demonstration of its armed might, which came in handy roughly a decade later with WW1. It was a small war, 'a splendid little war', as a friend of TR's put it, but it served as an important point in America's history and deserves to be remembered for more than the making of Teddy Roosevelt, with his Rough Riders and charge up San Juan Hill.
This is a thoroughly enjoyable book - although I'd argue any book featuring Teddy Roosevelt is enjoyable, simply he was such a larger than life figure - but it doesn't go into a huge amount of depth on the politics or historical legacy. The latter is a particular shame, given this war's influence on America's position regarding Cuba and its latter angst over imperialism, expansionism, not to mention the parallels with the Iraq war.
That he wasn't alone in this is the subject of this book. America has a somewhat dubious track-record of 'inventing' causes for war or manipulating situations to create a cause - 'Remember the Maine!' can sit quite comfortably alongside the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, or indeed September 11th if one wants to be truly controversial. There were definitely parties in America that wanted Spain out of Cuba; whether because they truly desired freedom for Cuba or freedom for America to operate in Cuba is almost immaterial. Certain individuals in America, the American press and a large portion of the American public wanted a war - one almost gets the sense that almost any war would have done.
This admirable book concerns the activities of three individuals in encouraging the declaration of war - Teddy Roosevelt, for one, in his role of Assistant Secretary of the Navy; Henry Cabot Lodge, TR's great friend and Senator for Massachusetts; William Randolph Hearst, editor of the New York Journal and one of the fathers of 'yellow journalism', or what we might today think of as the tabloid press; and three who fought across the war-fever sweeping the country - President McKinley, who was easily influenced and gave into pressure to declare war after the explosion of the Maine in Havana Harbour, blamed on the Spanish but almost certainly an accident; William James, brother of Henry James, a lecturer at Harvard and influential philosopher and psychologist; and William Reed, Speaker of the House.
The Spanish-American War wasn't quite the start of America as an imperial power (arguably that came with a similarly trumped up war against Mexico in the 1840s) but it brought with it Guam, the Philippines and Puerto Rico as American possessions, and it paved the way for the expansion of America's armed forces and served as a demonstration of its armed might, which came in handy roughly a decade later with WW1. It was a small war, 'a splendid little war', as a friend of TR's put it, but it served as an important point in America's history and deserves to be remembered for more than the making of Teddy Roosevelt, with his Rough Riders and charge up San Juan Hill.
This is a thoroughly enjoyable book - although I'd argue any book featuring Teddy Roosevelt is enjoyable, simply he was such a larger than life figure - but it doesn't go into a huge amount of depth on the politics or historical legacy. The latter is a particular shame, given this war's influence on America's position regarding Cuba and its latter angst over imperialism, expansionism, not to mention the parallels with the Iraq war.
March 3, 2015
Suppression of the truth, the outmaneuvering of the president by war-hungry subordinates, and the incessant publicity [...] were having an effect. A great welling-up of patriotism, mixed with a desire for revenge, spread from coast to coast.
Having very recently read Miller's The President and the Assassin: McKinley, Terror, and Empire at the Dawn of the American Century and Morris' The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, and since the book focuses a lot on Theodore Roosevelt, there was a quite a bit of overlap - and often, if I felt I was re-reading the same thing, that's because I was. On the other hand, what material the author includes about Hearst/James/Reed (as well as Henry Adams!) helps keep the book fresh & interesting. Also, there is an abundance of photographs (and some drawings) included which help put many a face to a name.
Moreover, the author mentions in his introduction that in addition to Roosevelt, Lodge, and Hearst (the hawks), he also included William James and Thomas Brackett Reed (the doves), to better balance the book - which sounds great, but in reality the Evan Thomas barely writes anything about Reed, gives only a bit more room to William James, and talks about Lodge & Hearst a fair amount. And with at least half the book being about Roosevelt, when you factor in the Lodge & Hearst parts, the book really isn't balanced at all.
But can it stand on its own? Definitely, yes. It's not Evan Thomas' fault if I've read a lot about TR before reading The War Lovers, so I won't take the information overlap into account in my appraisal of this book. The author set out to talk about the United States' 'rush to empire', specifically about the Spanish-American War, and did so while providing sufficient information on the period and the main players involved, such as Roosevelt & Hearst. These two gentlemen went out of their way, if not to provoke a war, at least to increase the odds of one breaking out.
Having very recently read Miller's The President and the Assassin: McKinley, Terror, and Empire at the Dawn of the American Century and Morris' The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, and since the book focuses a lot on Theodore Roosevelt, there was a quite a bit of overlap - and often, if I felt I was re-reading the same thing, that's because I was. On the other hand, what material the author includes about Hearst/James/Reed (as well as Henry Adams!) helps keep the book fresh & interesting. Also, there is an abundance of photographs (and some drawings) included which help put many a face to a name.
Moreover, the author mentions in his introduction that in addition to Roosevelt, Lodge, and Hearst (the hawks), he also included William James and Thomas Brackett Reed (the doves), to better balance the book - which sounds great, but in reality the Evan Thomas barely writes anything about Reed, gives only a bit more room to William James, and talks about Lodge & Hearst a fair amount. And with at least half the book being about Roosevelt, when you factor in the Lodge & Hearst parts, the book really isn't balanced at all.
But can it stand on its own? Definitely, yes. It's not Evan Thomas' fault if I've read a lot about TR before reading The War Lovers, so I won't take the information overlap into account in my appraisal of this book. The author set out to talk about the United States' 'rush to empire', specifically about the Spanish-American War, and did so while providing sufficient information on the period and the main players involved, such as Roosevelt & Hearst. These two gentlemen went out of their way, if not to provoke a war, at least to increase the odds of one breaking out.
April 7, 2011
On page 168. Thomas writes. On memorial Day 1896 William James was asked to speak at the Robert Gould Shaw Memorial in Boston. Shaw was the white commander of the famous all black 54th Massachusetts. He was there to speak about the bravery of the 54th and Shaw but he took a different turn than most such speachs about bravery in war. He said that in battle bravery is not uncommon, it is our nature to fight when confronted. The real bravery was that a person like Shaw who was rich, white and privillaged, would enter the black world alone and lead hid men to greatness. That was his real bravery. To stand against the racism of the time and prove it wrong, that was real bravery. After the speach it was if nobody could understand what he was talking about. James was very disappointed that evryone missed the point. But over a hundred years later his point is made by Evan Thomas.
Thia book will give you a good view of how the world was prior to the 20th century. But it has many good lessons for the 21st. century.
The main lesson is that war has many unseen problems, the insurection in the Phillipines was just like Vietnam and much like Iraq. Water boading wss first used in the Phillipines.
Read this book you will lern alot.
Thia book will give you a good view of how the world was prior to the 20th century. But it has many good lessons for the 21st. century.
The main lesson is that war has many unseen problems, the insurection in the Phillipines was just like Vietnam and much like Iraq. Water boading wss first used in the Phillipines.
Read this book you will lern alot.
May 18, 2010
I don't recall ever hearing the word "Imperialism" in high school in the 1950s, certainly not in connection with America. Perhaps the biggest "lies my teacher told me" are all the events and terms s/he left out of the curriculum. In Cuba Libre, Elmore Leonard gives an up-close account of the sinking of the Maine.
October 2, 2021
Fascinating account of the lead-up to the Spanish-American war in 1898. Thomas tells the story mainly by focusing on the figures of close friends Theodore Roosevelt (Asst. Secretary of the Navy) and Henry Cabot Lodge (Massachusetts Senator), journalism and media pioneer William Randolph Hearst, philosopher and professor William James, and Speaker of the House Thomas Brackett Reed. "War Lovers" refers mainly to the first three, Roosevelt and Lodge who wanted war for the sake of strengthening and purifying (as they saw it) the manly American character and the rightful (as they saw it) self-assertion of the Anglo-Saxon race, and Hearst who wanted war because it sold newspapers. James and Reed, on the other hand were both opposed to the budding American imperialism—Reed holding the line for a very small minority in Congress. But war came, and with America's acquisition of the Philippines and (indirectly) Cuba and Puerto Rico, it stepped on purpose into an international field. It's interesting to see how much of this was actually driven by, basically, an ideological social Darwinism.
Also worth noting, and quoting in full, in the introduction Thomas notes some close parallels with the much more recent Iraq war:
"The Spanish-American War is little remembered now. But more than the Civil War or World War II, it was a harbinger, if not the model, of modern American wars. It has some eerie parallels to the invasion of Iraq, another “war of choice” not immediately vital to the national security but ostensibly waged for broader and sometimes shifting humanitarian reasons [the Spanish-American to liberate Cuba from Spain]. Just as the threat of weapons of mass destruction turned out to be bogus in Iraq, the sinking of the Maine—the pretext for intervention—was caused not by a Spanish plot but rather almost certainly by a shipboard accident. The War Against Spain began as a “splendid little war,” as diplomat John Hay wrote Roosevelt after the Spanish were defeated in Cuba, but the conflict turned dangerous and ugly after the liberation of the Philippines from Spain. The United States plunged into a counterinsurgency that cost over four thousand American lives between 1898 and 1902, roughly the same death toll the nation suffered in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. To extract intelligence from the rebels, American soldiers pioneered the torture known as waterboarding—one of several inhumane American practices used against Filipinos."
Overall, a good look into the turn of the century and some of the forces of what shaped America into what it is today.
Also worth noting, and quoting in full, in the introduction Thomas notes some close parallels with the much more recent Iraq war:
"The Spanish-American War is little remembered now. But more than the Civil War or World War II, it was a harbinger, if not the model, of modern American wars. It has some eerie parallels to the invasion of Iraq, another “war of choice” not immediately vital to the national security but ostensibly waged for broader and sometimes shifting humanitarian reasons [the Spanish-American to liberate Cuba from Spain]. Just as the threat of weapons of mass destruction turned out to be bogus in Iraq, the sinking of the Maine—the pretext for intervention—was caused not by a Spanish plot but rather almost certainly by a shipboard accident. The War Against Spain began as a “splendid little war,” as diplomat John Hay wrote Roosevelt after the Spanish were defeated in Cuba, but the conflict turned dangerous and ugly after the liberation of the Philippines from Spain. The United States plunged into a counterinsurgency that cost over four thousand American lives between 1898 and 1902, roughly the same death toll the nation suffered in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. To extract intelligence from the rebels, American soldiers pioneered the torture known as waterboarding—one of several inhumane American practices used against Filipinos."
Overall, a good look into the turn of the century and some of the forces of what shaped America into what it is today.
June 6, 2010
War Lovers is a matter-of-fact look at the American vision in the post-civil war world, how the Spanish-American War was a by-product of this attitude, and how it effected journalism, the military, intellectualism and politics at the very end of the 19th century. The book classically details this growth through the actions and lives of Henry Cabot Lodge (Sen. Massachusetts), William Randolph Hearst (yellow journalist), William James (Harvard Professor and intellectual giant) and Theodore Roosevelt (adventurer and future President).
It is absolutely no accident that the book has a deep and overwhelming echo- the same thrills, fears, prejudices and mania that struck America at the turn of the 20th century would be the EXACT same fears, paranoia, thrills etc that would strike America at the turn of the 21st Century. While War Lovers chronicles the invasion of Cuba, all the reader would need to do to make the book current would be to change a few names and apply it to Iraq, and it all works just as well. We have been here before; only the location is different.
The book's setting is a rudderless nation plagued in the aftermath of a debilitating War; industry DOMINATES the national identity. But right underneath is a nation filled with the children of Civil War veterans (or in the case of Hearst and Roosevelt, Civil War draftees who paid others to take their spot) who have almost crippling inadequacies attempting to live up to the standard the prior generation. Its almost pathetic listening to Roosevelt talk about the desire to be in combat, to live up to the standard set by the previous generation (it should be noted that George W. Bush is the a child of a WWII veteran).
This is then buttressed on the ingrained racism of the period, wherein men like Lodge and Roosevelt believed that the Anglo-Saxon "race" was inherently superior to all other races. Thus, Anglo-Saxon men OWED it to the world to dominate it. And in those two settings, Cuba rises.
The United States prior to 1898, the year of the Spanish American War, was a growing nation hell-bent on Manifest Destiny and in taking all that it could. No nation- certainly not Spain - could stop it. As Europe looked inward, the US looked outward. Spain was a crippled phantom of a nation with possessions as far away as the Philippines, but also as close as Puerto Rico and Cuba.
The book details the drive to war and how journalists pushes national paranoia and how politicians pushed that agenda. The ultimate reality was when the USS Maine was destroyed off the coast of Cuba. Hearst claimed that the Maine was sunk as a result of a Spanish mine. Suddenly, "Remember the Maine" became a rallying cry - Spain struck the US so we must invade Cuba!
100 years later, we would wrap ourselves into "Never Forget 9/11;" the US was attacked so we must invade Iraq.
It should be noted that to this day, no evidence AT ALL exists that states that Spain was responsible for the sinking of the Maine; no evidence exists that states that Iraq was in any way responsible for 9/11. But when have facts ever stopped Americans?
The invasion of Cuba was the most incredible episode in US history in that it was a one-sided war wherein we were the only ones actually fighting; described by Roosevelt as adventure; one where Roosevelt actually HOPED he would be seriously wounded- if not killed - as to prove his manhood. The entire book expands on the idea that the men who went to Spain felt that they were proving their manhood by beating up on a second-rate, third world power.
The "war" ends relatively rapidly. Do I even need to say what happens next? Shockingly, short of President McKinley having a banner marked "Mission Accomplished" , its almost a carbon copy of George W. Bush's COMICALLY TRAGIC May 2003 declaration of the end of the Iraq War. The nation declares the war over - and it goes on and on and on for years (decades) to come, as America was bogged down in a series of guerrilla wars with Philippine and Cuban forces. Year in and year out in an EPICALLY forgotten war (read "Lies Across America" by James W. Loewen that chronicles the blatant lies told in American monuments, and how Americans have been lied to about the after-math of the Spanish American war through these very monuments. One is in the town I live now).
But hey, thankfully Americans are no longer involved in endless wars in far-off lands against enemies who fight with these type of tactics. Or not.
War Lovers also details several men who were deeply and utterly conflicted over the war; how it ruined their political and social lives. And how they never supported a war again.
But the main character in the book is TR: Theodore Roosevelt a man in love with war and warfare who lionized anyone in a uniform, including himself. He NEEDED to fight in a war. TR did everything short of blowing up the Maine himself to make this war happen- once declared he joined the Rough Riders and invaded Cuba. Racist, clueless at times and utterly unlikable in his desire to get people killed, Roosevelt shocks you in his candor and grit.
TR is one of my favorite Presidents and the book is NOT kind to him. But the book also explains that once he became President, TR changed- no wars in his administration and he even won a Nobel PEACE prize for ending the Russo-Japanese war in 1905. He was progressive, aggressive and decidedly pro-government. And when his son Quentin was slain in WWI, he was not as up on war any longer. A year later, he died.
And his picture still hangs in his old office that was once the office of the Dept of the Navy - now the Office of the Vice President. And its most recent occupant- before the Obama/Biden Administration -was I. Scooter Libby.
We have gone nowhere in 100 years. This book crystallizes that.
It is absolutely no accident that the book has a deep and overwhelming echo- the same thrills, fears, prejudices and mania that struck America at the turn of the 20th century would be the EXACT same fears, paranoia, thrills etc that would strike America at the turn of the 21st Century. While War Lovers chronicles the invasion of Cuba, all the reader would need to do to make the book current would be to change a few names and apply it to Iraq, and it all works just as well. We have been here before; only the location is different.
The book's setting is a rudderless nation plagued in the aftermath of a debilitating War; industry DOMINATES the national identity. But right underneath is a nation filled with the children of Civil War veterans (or in the case of Hearst and Roosevelt, Civil War draftees who paid others to take their spot) who have almost crippling inadequacies attempting to live up to the standard the prior generation. Its almost pathetic listening to Roosevelt talk about the desire to be in combat, to live up to the standard set by the previous generation (it should be noted that George W. Bush is the a child of a WWII veteran).
This is then buttressed on the ingrained racism of the period, wherein men like Lodge and Roosevelt believed that the Anglo-Saxon "race" was inherently superior to all other races. Thus, Anglo-Saxon men OWED it to the world to dominate it. And in those two settings, Cuba rises.
The United States prior to 1898, the year of the Spanish American War, was a growing nation hell-bent on Manifest Destiny and in taking all that it could. No nation- certainly not Spain - could stop it. As Europe looked inward, the US looked outward. Spain was a crippled phantom of a nation with possessions as far away as the Philippines, but also as close as Puerto Rico and Cuba.
The book details the drive to war and how journalists pushes national paranoia and how politicians pushed that agenda. The ultimate reality was when the USS Maine was destroyed off the coast of Cuba. Hearst claimed that the Maine was sunk as a result of a Spanish mine. Suddenly, "Remember the Maine" became a rallying cry - Spain struck the US so we must invade Cuba!
100 years later, we would wrap ourselves into "Never Forget 9/11;" the US was attacked so we must invade Iraq.
It should be noted that to this day, no evidence AT ALL exists that states that Spain was responsible for the sinking of the Maine; no evidence exists that states that Iraq was in any way responsible for 9/11. But when have facts ever stopped Americans?
The invasion of Cuba was the most incredible episode in US history in that it was a one-sided war wherein we were the only ones actually fighting; described by Roosevelt as adventure; one where Roosevelt actually HOPED he would be seriously wounded- if not killed - as to prove his manhood. The entire book expands on the idea that the men who went to Spain felt that they were proving their manhood by beating up on a second-rate, third world power.
The "war" ends relatively rapidly. Do I even need to say what happens next? Shockingly, short of President McKinley having a banner marked "Mission Accomplished" , its almost a carbon copy of George W. Bush's COMICALLY TRAGIC May 2003 declaration of the end of the Iraq War. The nation declares the war over - and it goes on and on and on for years (decades) to come, as America was bogged down in a series of guerrilla wars with Philippine and Cuban forces. Year in and year out in an EPICALLY forgotten war (read "Lies Across America" by James W. Loewen that chronicles the blatant lies told in American monuments, and how Americans have been lied to about the after-math of the Spanish American war through these very monuments. One is in the town I live now).
But hey, thankfully Americans are no longer involved in endless wars in far-off lands against enemies who fight with these type of tactics. Or not.
War Lovers also details several men who were deeply and utterly conflicted over the war; how it ruined their political and social lives. And how they never supported a war again.
But the main character in the book is TR: Theodore Roosevelt a man in love with war and warfare who lionized anyone in a uniform, including himself. He NEEDED to fight in a war. TR did everything short of blowing up the Maine himself to make this war happen- once declared he joined the Rough Riders and invaded Cuba. Racist, clueless at times and utterly unlikable in his desire to get people killed, Roosevelt shocks you in his candor and grit.
TR is one of my favorite Presidents and the book is NOT kind to him. But the book also explains that once he became President, TR changed- no wars in his administration and he even won a Nobel PEACE prize for ending the Russo-Japanese war in 1905. He was progressive, aggressive and decidedly pro-government. And when his son Quentin was slain in WWI, he was not as up on war any longer. A year later, he died.
And his picture still hangs in his old office that was once the office of the Dept of the Navy - now the Office of the Vice President. And its most recent occupant- before the Obama/Biden Administration -was I. Scooter Libby.
We have gone nowhere in 100 years. This book crystallizes that.
March 13, 2025
Evan Thomas’s The War Lovers is a riveting account of the powerful men who steered America into the Spanish-American War, blending politics, media, and ambition into a compelling narrative. With sharp storytelling and vivid detail, Thomas brings to life Theodore Roosevelt’s unrelenting thirst for battle, Henry Cabot Lodge’s intellectual embrace of American expansion, and William Randolph Hearst’s reckless use of sensationalist journalism to fan the flames of war. The book reads like a political thriller, exposing how nationalism and personal ambition collided to shape history. Fast-paced, insightful, and eerily relevant, The War Lovers is a must-read for anyone fascinated by the intersection of war, media, and power.
June 22, 2019
This book is after the style of Bernard Cornwell. I did not like any of his books that I have read and I did not like this book. The stories of war and the lead up to the frenzy of war does not compel me as a reader. To learn of the use of the press and lies and near lies to justify the need some have to go to war or to become hero's is disheartening. The love of history does bring me to listen to these giants of history but does not increase my faith in our history and what we are to believe of these men that formed the government of the United States in the late 1800's.
August 12, 2020
A very well written book. Enjoyable from beginning to end. Five characters whose stories should be told together. The main knock I have is the author is continually psycho analyzing characters from more than a hundred years ago with his own “modern” viewpoints which are left of center. This is always a mistake. But the book is good enough to look through the nonsense and think for yourself.
March 14, 2017
In The War Lovers Evan Thomas chronicles how three men TR, Henry Cabot Lodge and Wm R Hearst pushed the US into war w Spain in 1898 making us an imperial power. The war made TR a hero and propelled him into the White House. It was his "crowded hour".
September 12, 2014
Ever read a book that sounded fascinating but you just can't seem to get into it? Every time you pick it up it's like drudgery, and you find your mind wandering while your eyes glaze over and keep skimming paragraphs without taking any of it in. And worst of all, you feel obligated to finish it?
The Spanish-American War (1898) has been looked upon by history as a "war of choice." There was a legitimate reason - it helped to liberate Cuba - but it was mostly pressed by several individuals eager for war. Chief among them was Theodore Roosevelt, who having grown up as a sickly child had developed into a physical and energetic (and aggressive) force, and he saw it as a way to prove himself (it didn't hurt his political career, either). He also felt the nation had grown weak and needed a fight to revitalize itself, a view shared by his friend Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. Publisher William Randolph Hearst also supported the war but his motivation was to sell newspapers. The chief opposition was Thomas Reed, Speaker of the House, and the philosopher William James.
I really wanted to like this book. Having recently read a bio of Roosevelt that was so over-the-top praising and syrupy, I wanted something a little more grounded and realistic. Unfortunately, this one was the polar opposite, and Thomas seldom misses an opportunity to denigrate Roosevelt (after a child had been born in the family, he takes a cheap shot by saying "Having done his part to replenish the Anglo Saxon race..." pg 194). I'm no expert on Teddy Roosevelt, and this book could very well be accurate, but such an obvious and excessive bias doesn't ring any more realistic than the other book. All the psychoanalysis is annoying, as is Thomas' over-use of the word "effete," but my biggest complaint was that the book was just plain boring. In fact, it took four efforts to get through this book, each time a struggle (on the plus side, it's loaded with pictures). I had 2 other books on my reading list by the author - both *looked* very interesting - but I've since removed them.
The Spanish-American War (1898) has been looked upon by history as a "war of choice." There was a legitimate reason - it helped to liberate Cuba - but it was mostly pressed by several individuals eager for war. Chief among them was Theodore Roosevelt, who having grown up as a sickly child had developed into a physical and energetic (and aggressive) force, and he saw it as a way to prove himself (it didn't hurt his political career, either). He also felt the nation had grown weak and needed a fight to revitalize itself, a view shared by his friend Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. Publisher William Randolph Hearst also supported the war but his motivation was to sell newspapers. The chief opposition was Thomas Reed, Speaker of the House, and the philosopher William James.
I really wanted to like this book. Having recently read a bio of Roosevelt that was so over-the-top praising and syrupy, I wanted something a little more grounded and realistic. Unfortunately, this one was the polar opposite, and Thomas seldom misses an opportunity to denigrate Roosevelt (after a child had been born in the family, he takes a cheap shot by saying "Having done his part to replenish the Anglo Saxon race..." pg 194). I'm no expert on Teddy Roosevelt, and this book could very well be accurate, but such an obvious and excessive bias doesn't ring any more realistic than the other book. All the psychoanalysis is annoying, as is Thomas' over-use of the word "effete," but my biggest complaint was that the book was just plain boring. In fact, it took four efforts to get through this book, each time a struggle (on the plus side, it's loaded with pictures). I had 2 other books on my reading list by the author - both *looked* very interesting - but I've since removed them.
January 26, 2011
This is a non fiction book exploring the character of American jingoism in general and the titled characters, specifically, during the run up to and during the Spanish American war of 1898. Teddy Roosevelt and his best friend Henry Cabot Lodge, were Brahmins of Boston and believed strongly in social Darwinism, which was popular among the upper classes of that time. Basically, they believed that the most fit species of humanity, that being the English speaking Anglo-Saxons, were meant to lead and rule the lesser part of humanity, and in line with that they were purveyors of American exceptionalism, a belief that America is special among nations. Both also were believers in war in general as a molder of men and a brake on effetism. There was no good reason for America to go to war with Spain over Cuba, but Roosevelt, Lodge and William Randolph Hearst, along with others in power, pushed for it and they succeeded. It is a very interesting history and has parallels today, although there are always parallels to most history, especially when it comes to man’s desire for war and it’s misperceived glories.
September 28, 2012
I found this book to be a great read as well as informing (educational). I was looking for a book on the Spanish-American War period for some time and chose this one due to my great interest in Theodore Roosevelt. I have read at least 3 other historical or biographical books about our very charismatic president, we fondly call Teddy.
The War Lovers added the other people involved with the thirst for war and making America a world power but also like many other powers - abuse of the position through invasion and creation of major conflicts in Cuba but also the Philippines thereafter. So read about leaders at that time such as, Thomas Reed - House Speaker, William Hearst - publisher and enthusiast to prove himself like Roosevelt in battle and manly adventures, Henry Cabot Lodge - Senator and friend of Teddy.
The author, Mr. Thomas admits to writing the book as a result of 9-11 and war buildup in 2003 Iraq.
For me it fills one portion of this 1898 conflict interest, the beginning only. Now I look for a book about the Navy and Army in the Philippines from 1899-1902. My Great-Grandfather was in the Navy and the conflict from 1899 - 1903, so I look to learn for genealogy too.
The War Lovers added the other people involved with the thirst for war and making America a world power but also like many other powers - abuse of the position through invasion and creation of major conflicts in Cuba but also the Philippines thereafter. So read about leaders at that time such as, Thomas Reed - House Speaker, William Hearst - publisher and enthusiast to prove himself like Roosevelt in battle and manly adventures, Henry Cabot Lodge - Senator and friend of Teddy.
The author, Mr. Thomas admits to writing the book as a result of 9-11 and war buildup in 2003 Iraq.
For me it fills one portion of this 1898 conflict interest, the beginning only. Now I look for a book about the Navy and Army in the Philippines from 1899-1902. My Great-Grandfather was in the Navy and the conflict from 1899 - 1903, so I look to learn for genealogy too.
May 31, 2010
Anything Evan Thomas writes about is going to be interesting and well written. This is a very different look at Theodore Roosevelt and it is not particularly flattering. The book attempts to basically peg Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge and publishing magnate William Heast (who did not like or deal directly much with Roosevelt or Lodge) as the precursors of the current US neo-conservative movement (at several points, explicitly). I am not sure I totally agree with Thomas on this thesis and I came away more than a little surprised at his portrayal of Roosevelt as a preening nerd desperate to prove his manhood in battle. But I will give Thomas this -- the book is provacative and forces the reader to look at Roosevelt, the birth of the American Empire and how we got to where we are today in a new way. And despite those who are complaining about this, I think it is at a minimum a healthy exercise to undertake (and a very interesting read, to boot -- learned a lot about Roosevelt I had not known before and I've read quite a bit about him in the past).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 201 reviews