Martin O Regan Student No.

108595062 Lecturer: Michael Cullihane

Theodore Roosevelt, Preacher of Righteousness by Joshua Hawley.

This biography is different to other biographies because it focuses on TR as a

political thinker. Throughout the book Hawley traces the ideological
developments and currents in TR’s life. He demonstrates that TR was very much
a man of time. TR followed the great intellectual currents of his time. TR was a
Victorian. As a child he was sick and invalid. Having time to read he read about
vigorous lives outdoors. He absorbed the Victorian era belief in rigorous living. A
life of luxury and license would ultimately leave you sick and immoral.
The major case that Hawley attempts to make throughout his book is that TR was
fundamentally a conservative. TR believed himself to both at different times of
his life making this a difficult task. Hawley makes the case that TR used
progressive politics for conservative ends. This might not be totally satisfying.
Hawley is not afraid to say that TR could be illogical. That he believed things that
didn’t fit in with his logical superstructure. He accepts that TR could hold
contradictory opinions.
Because TR was a man of his time his views on race could be regarded as racist
today. TR believed that the Tuetons were obviously superior because of their
technological advances. The English development of liberal democracy and self-
rule was another sign of this superiority. The English speaking races had
embraced the Christian ethic of universal love. They had risen above brute
competition. TR believed that African Americans had the ability to rise to the
White level with careful tutelage. But they were not at level now. The White
standard and culture was objectively the highest level of civilisation.
Because Americans were so advanced it followed that it was best for the world if
the US ruled it. TR believed in following a foreign policy that increased the
influence the US in world
During his childhood TR was afflicted by sickness. He had asthma. The American
Civil War happened when he was young. His parents came from opposite sides of
the problem. Hawley presents TR’s invalid childhood as a major factor in forming
TR’s adult persona. He was crippled by asthma. He would get asthma attacks
often at night. Theodore Roosevelt Sr would sometimes stay up all night look
after TR. TR couldn’t have a normal childhood. Outdoor activity was not much of
an option. So TR developed an appetite for books. He was most interested in
books about adventure. Hawley picks up on the fact that he read young peoples
magazine called Our Young Folks 1 Young Folks was according to Hawley
propaganda for the republican ideal. A good and strong America needed people
with moral fiber. A cultured mind and a vigorous body was the ideal. Judging by
TR’s later life it would appear that he learned this lesson well. TR was obsessed
with keeping fit. Roosevelt the son of an aristocratic New York family went out to
the West to rancher. This is unusual to say the least. He complained as President
that he couldn’t follow his usual physical regime. TR had in later life distaste for
his childhood. He was personally shocked that he could spend so long invalided.
The American Civil War coincided with TR’s childhood. To some extent the
tensions of that time were replicated in the Roosevelt household. His mother was
1
Joshua Hawley, ‘Theodore Roosevelt Preacher of righteousness’ (New Haven, Yale
University Press 2006)
from the South. She brought the social mores of the South with her. She once
started mimicking a black slave at a dinner party. Theodore Roosevelt Senior
was so angered that he physically picked her up and removed her from the room.
TR Senior had been worked with the Union armies and met Lincoln. The idea of
his father and Lincoln remained with TR throughout his life. He spoke about this
on his first night in the White House. His mother told him romantic stories about
war and crusades. But his father political positions were to have a lasting effect.
He was Republican. He didn’t accept in slavery but neither did he have a high
opinion of Black Americans

Joshua Hawley makes the case throughout his biography that Theodore
Roosevelt was a conservative. As with most things about TR this made difficult
by the fact that the TR thought of himself as a progressive at certain points of his
life. Roosevelt claimed an affinity with Edmund Burke a member of the British
House of Commons around the time of the French revolution. Burke was
horrified by the violence of the revolution. The French revolutionaries discarded
tradition. They uprooted the social order and proclaimed a New France founded
on Liberty Fraternity and Equality. The French revolution was a rupture with the
past. Burke fundamentally was sceptical of the ability of society to reform
dramatically. TR quoted from Burke in his fifth annual message to congress that
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put
moral chains on their appetites”i. Roosevelt believed fundamentally that very
person in society had to develop virtue. Otherwise republican government itself
was in danger. If the state became over large then it would undermine virtue.
TR thought socialism was deadening to the buccaneering spirit he thought was
the essential to the American way of life.

But during his presidency he promoted anti-trust legislation. He became known

as TR the trustbuster. Standard Oil was broken up in 30 different companies
during his presidency. He vigorously promoted civil service reform. He expanded
government to regulate railroads and to set up national parks. From the moment
he entered the New York state legislature he was pushing for the civil service
reform. He associated himself with good governance reformers.

After his presidency he became associated with the Progressive party. The
progressive party believed in expanding government to remedy the social ills of
the time. It wanted a national health service. The Progressives wanted social
insurance for the elderly and unemployed. It pushed higher taxes, an inheritance
tax and a federal income tax. Throughout his campaign with the Progressive
party TR was sympathetic to women’s suffrage. The progressives wanted the
senate elected by the popular vote. They wanted the lists of party candidates
controlled by primary elections reducing the power of the party machines. TR
himself promoted the idea of the Square deal. The square deal would be a fair
compromise between the demands of Labour and Capital.

Joshua Hawley presents TR’s return to politics as “shocking personal hubris” 2.

This is unfair. TR reentered the political fray because he believed that the 1912
election was taking place in the context of a social revolution. TR believed that
2
Hawley, Theodore Roosevelt, 207
election of 1912 would give him the chance to radically reform America.
Americans wanted reform. In an article for outlook magazine The Trusts, the
people, and Square Deal he denounced the anti trust policy of President Taft. The
article represented a break with his anti-trust policy. TR now believed that
corporations should be controlled and regulated by and expanded government of
experts appointed by the executive. TR was didn’t intend to return to politics in
1912. He dismissed as foolish any attempt to get him into the race. “I shall under
no circumstances seek the nomination or work for it in any way, directly or
indirectly” he said in a letter to Governor Osborn. But he says if “as the result of a
genuine popular movement” he would return to the ring. A committee of
Republican governors organised to encourage TR back into politics. TR was
flooded with letters for republican grassroots looking for him to save the
Republican for progressivism. When TR visited Harvard a crowd of thousands
mobbed him. TR hated the fact that he had failed to get many of reforms through
in his own presidency. He wanted to re enter politics on the wave of popular
support. On this wave he could push through his reforms. Power would
centralised in an executive. The president would be a national leader. The
president could represent in his own person the popular will. Connected with
this he would restrain the judiciary. He would subject any judgments he
disagreed with to a popular vote. TR hoped that if he had a massive vote he
wouldn’t have the congress in his way.
None of this seems very in keeping with being a conservative. Hawley makes the
case that Roosevelt was in essence a social conservative. He wanted to preserve
traditional American society and it’s values such as the right to property. TR saw
that actions of unrestrained big business could destroy these traditional values.
He wanted to restrain big business because its concentrated power could
dampen the frontier spirit that he admired. TR believed that the only alternative
to trust busting was nationalisation. By breaking up the large trusts he was
ensuring the continuance on private enterprise in areas such as the railroads.
Bigness was inevitable but in the case of railroads it would lead to
nationalisation. Trust busting was the lesser of two evils.
The industrial societies that grew up in the large cities were a product of big
business. The cities were blighted by social problems that tore up the social
fabric and destroyed American values. Wage slavery was not becoming of
Americans. TR had seen in his days in New York that it could lead to social evils
such as addiction. So the “true friend of property, the true conservative, is he
who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the
commonwealth”. For TR conservatism didn’t mean unrestrained private
enterprise but a wider aspiration towards preserving social structures. He would
even expand government to achieve these aims.

One of the major foreign policy incidents during TR’s presidency was the
creation of the Republic of Panama. For many years there were plans to build a
canal In Panama. In the 1880s the French had tried and failed due to excessive
loss of life. The US had plans to either buy the rights from the French or to build a
different canal Nicaragua. US involvement with Panama had a long history. There
was Treaty with the earlier State of New Granada that the US could land troops in
Panama to ensure that it didn’t become independent or that a foreign power took
control of it. This was in order to defend US personnel. The US had used this
power six times by Roosevelt’s count. This gave the US a foothold in the area
with a view to building a canal. Control of a canal between the Pacific and the
Atlantic would give the US the dominant position in world trade. TR wanted to be
the president to build the canal. He planed to buy the Isthmus of Panama off the
Columbia. They would retain titular sovereignty of Panama. The Columbian
Senate rejected this proposal because the annual payment was too cheap.

The Panamanians had desired independence from Columbia and saw the treaty
with the US as a way of achieving this. When the Columbian parliament refused
the treaty they rebelled. This was done at first without any US aid. Hawley
suggests that the US navy made the rebellion. But the nationalist idea had a long
history. In previous summer, unrest in Panama was widely reported in the US
press. The US navy was in the seas near Panama. Roosevelt had been gauging the
sentiments of Panamananians through discussion with people from the area.
These facts were made known to the Panamananians though of the efforts of M.
Philippe Bunea-Varilla. Bunea-Varilla was had been an engineer with the French
Panama Canal Company and had met TR. He followed shipping announcements
in the US press and had a source that could tell him about naval movements. 3 ii

Was TR practicing imperialism when he took Panama? He had a firm legal case
for intervening in Panama. Under previous the treaty he had the ability to
intervene. The US could intervene to ensure the continuance of safe transit over
the Isthmus. He could justify intervention to protest US strategic interests,
property and personnel. The newly independent Panama was recognised quickly
by other nations in Latin America and Europe. Independence seemed to be the
will of the people.

TR’s views on Race are complicated. They coloured his view of both domestic
and foreign affairs. Was he racist or racialist. It is the difference between an
exploitation of “inferior races” or paternalistic condescension. The main
influence on TR regarding race was his education at Harvard. Roosevelt took
classes by Nathaniel Shaler on natural science. Shaler was a follower of Jean
Bapiste Lamarck. Lamarck developed a theory of evolution that individuals
developed characteristics and then passed these characteristics on to their
offspring. This theory dominated throughout most of TR’s life and is important
for understanding his views on race and their relation to each other.
Shaler’s grand narrative was that humans developed out the state of nature b
developing altruism. The state of nature was a savage world where no cared for
no one else. Because humans were always suspicious of each other they could
never form communities. This was the lowest stage of humanity. The next stage
consisted of the first glimmering of humanity. Family units began to develop.
Humans cared for and had sympathy for other in their tribe. The old feeling of
hatred were now reserved for humans outside of their own tribe. Shaler believed
that only one race had risen above this level, the Tuetons. They had developed
because of their embrace of universal love. They had become Christians and
hence had risen above competitive hatreds. They were the most advanced in
language, technology, politics and general culture. TR was attracted to this idea
of Tueton superiority. They were superior because of love not violent
3
competition. “Side by side with the selfish development in life” Roosevelt though,
“there has been almost from the beginning a certain amount of uncertain
development too; and in the evolution of humanity the unselfish side has on the
whole, tended steadily to increase at the expense of the selfish, notably in the
progressive communities”.4 Tuetons were superior because of altruism not
brute competition. Their racial characteristics and nothing else made the first
people to self govern. They had the inherent virtues needed for true liberty. They
had representative democracy.
TR believed throughout his life that the Black race was inferior to the Tueton.
They were mentally inferior. Their subjugation to the whites was illustrative of
their inferiority. The Native Americans fared even worse. TR felt no sympathy for
their loss of land and life. TR in his History of the westward expansion The
Winning of the West makes no apology for the massacres committed against the
Native Americans. The Native Americans were brutal race cruel towards other
tribes, constantly at war with each other. They had, to TR’s eyes, no culture of
any worth. They had used their time in North America to do nothing. The Whites
by the fact that they could militarily defeat the Native Americans were perfectly
right to take control of North America. It was their moral imperative as the
superior race to control and rule the lesser race. TR believed that by ruling lesser
races they could go on to develop the characteristics of the Tuetons. TR believed
following Lamarck, that they could acquire civilised virtues. He had paternalistic
attitude towards them. The superior race ruling the lesser race was in fact the
most compassionate thing to do in TR’s mind. This may seem like a mealy
mouthed defense of colonial brutality. No doubt that it attractive to TR because
absolved Americans of the imperialism that they hated in other states. But we
have no reason to believe that he didn’t believe it was true.
TR believed in racial superiority. But he believed that the superior race had to
use its power to teach the lower race. He had a paternalistic attitude towards
lower race that was benevolent. TR didn’t believe that the slavery was right. He
thought that it unworthy of Americans that it degraded them. It was an
exploitative not paternalistic. But his attitude towards the Native Americans
does not seem compassionate in any way. The wars in the Philippines had TR as
a primary driving force. It was the best outcome for humanity if the higher races
ruled. Hawley on the main focuses on the paternalistic aspects of TR’s views on
race. But he does not does not forget to illustrate the more repugnant
consequences of his views. Hawley discusses TR’s belief in the social gospel as a
restraint on his Darwinism. TR made a distinction between evolutionary science
and it social implications i.e. Social Darwinism. He didn’t follow Social Darwinism
more cruel implications. Hawley believes that that TR had no logical base for this.
He wasn’t following his views where they lead. He mixed in the Social Gospel that
dictated that we must be kind to each other. TR believed it was unbecoming of
Tuetons to engage in cruelty.

Joshua Hawley makes a case that TR was a conservative in essence. He interprets

TR’s progressive policies as examples of underlining conservatism. TR promoted
progressive policies for conservative ends. He promoted social reform in order to
stop social revolution. But maybe some aspects of TR’s reforms are too
4
David H. Burton, “Theodore Roosevelt’s social Darwinism and views on
Imperialism,” The journal of the history of Ideas 26 (1965) 107
progressive to be regarded as mean social reformism. TR by the end of his career
was pushing for expanded government. But TR didn’t have much regard for the
American Constitution. TR found the separation of powers an intolerable
restrain on his ability to do what he wanted to do. His centralisation of power in
the executive does not remind you of a conservative anxious to defend the
American constitution. Perhaps Hawley should be content to accept TR’s
contradictions. Hawley lays out clearly how ideas informed TR’s actions. His
belief in evolution and racial superiority provided an intellectual justification for
expanding American power in the world at the expense of lesser counties like
Columbia. He believed that it was right to expand American power in order to
contain the European Empires. TR’s interpretation of Darwinism could lead to
him having both paternalistic and exploitative attitudes towards “lesser” races.
African Americans could be raised by Anglo Saxon teaching to a higher level. But
American Indians because they were in the way of an expanding United States
could be exploited at will. The lasting impression Preacher of Righteousness is
that TR still defies easy interpretation.
i
Hawley, Theodore Roosevelt, 168
ii

Bibliography
Joshua Hawley, ‘Theodore Roosevelt Preacher of Righteousness’ (New Haven: Yale University,
2008)
Kathleen Dalton, ‘Theodore Roosevelt A strenuous life’ (New York: Vintage books, 2002)
David H. Burton, “Theodore Roosevelt’s social Darwinism and views on Imperialism,” The
journal of the history of Ideas 26 (1965) 103-113
Robert Friedlander, “A reassessment of Roosevelt’s role in the Panamanian Revolution of 1903,”
The Western Political Quarterly 14 (1961) 535-543
The Claremont Institute, Review by Jean M. Yarbrough Progressive Conservative
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1569/article_detail.asp
“The Night President Teddy Roosevelt Invited Booker T. Washington to dinner,” The journal of
blacks in Higher Education, 35 (Spring, 2002), 24-25
Andrew C. Pavord, “The Gamble for Power: Theodore Roosevelt Decision to Run for the
Presidency in 1912,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 26 (1996) 633-647