1|Page

Eric Lemberg

Hoganson, Kristin L., Fighting for American Manhood: How Gender Politics Provoked
the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars, (Yale Historical Publications,
Yale University Press: 1998).

About the author: Kristin L. Hoganson is a professor of history at University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign, a professor of gender and women's studies and an author of many books including

Fighting for American Manhood, Once Upon a Place: The U.S. Heartland Between Security and

Empire, and Consumers’ Imperium: The Global Production of American Domesticity, 1865-1920.

Scope: Fighting for American Manhood focuses on the late 19th and early 20th centuries,

specifically on cultural and gender issues that Hoganson posits deeply influenced U.S. domestic

and foreign policy.

Historiography: Hoganson states on pages 2-3 that her aim is to connect the cultural roots and

gender convictions of the time to the policy decisions that were made; she explains that

political decisions are not made in a vacuum but rather are deeply influenced by the cultural

beliefs and gender notions of the people who make them.

Methodology: Hoganson mostly utilizes direct quotes from politicians and political activists to

show their gender biases and pre-conceived notions, as well as the counter points to those

arguments. She also highlights policy decisions as well as political cartoons to supplement her

points. The focus is on examining the culture beliefs of the time, specifically the gender biases

that she argues led to war.

This study source was downloaded by 100000817435839 from CourseHero.com on 05-08-2021 08:13:04 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/20964810/Hoganson/
 2|Page

Thesis: The main argument of the book is that cultural notions of gender roles and biases played

a large role in America's propagation of imperialistic attitudes and actions in the late 19th

century, specifically in Cuba and the Philippines.

Chapter 1: The first chapter opens up with two sides of American politics clearly delineated: the

jingo's and the arbitrationists. Today these two sides may be called the hawks and the doves. On

the arbitrationist side were those that preferred a calm, dispassionate stance on foreign policy.

Amongst them were visible leaders such as President Grover Cleveland, President William

McKinley and various women's activists groups including the suffragettes. (p. 18) On the jingoist

side were famous military figures like Alfred Thayer Mahan and future president Theodore

Roosevelt. There is much debate in this chapter about the notion of honor, regarded in

militaristic terms as a man's domain; while female honor had more to do with sexual purity and

virtue. (p. 24)

Hoganson details the newly emerging class and racial tensions visible in society too, as

the manly and martial fraternalism of the Civil War era was cracking under the emergence of a

new prosperous middle and upper class grown decadent with the economic progress of the

impending industrial era. (p. 26) Jingo's rejected these new social values, viewing them as effete

and contradictory to the health of the Republic and the long term prospect of manhood in

America. Suffragettes, on the other hand, were hopeful that women's inclusion in politics would

usher in a new era of purity, morality and intelligence. Jingo's feared female inclusion and

thought it would lead to social and political degeneracy. (p. 34)

This study source was downloaded by 100000817435839 from CourseHero.com on 05-08-2021 08:13:04 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/20964810/Hoganson/
Chapter 2: In this chapter, Hoganson aims to explain why and how American's came to view the

plight of Cubans as their own problem. The Cuban revolutionaries were idealized and glorified

both in rhetoric and in political cartoons; the women for their femininity and the men for their

chivalry.(p. 47) It's notable to mention that this glorification was not limited by racist notions,

otherwise quite common for the time. Cuba itself was represented often in political cartoons as

a beautiful young woman in chains, juxtaposed against Spain, which was represented often as

child-like.(p. 53) American jingo's saw their duty to get involved in chivalric terms; defending

Cuba from Spanish soldiers, often seen as bestial rapists, would prop up American manhood

and honor. Many female arbitrationists rejected this notion of chivalry as an impediment to

female inclusion in politics since the justifications and motives of the jingo's relied heavily on

gender roles and presuppositions. (p. 45)

Chapter 3: After the U.S.S. Maine sinks near Havana, it is utilized by jingo's as a valid casus belli

despite there being no evidence of Spain being involved. There is a sub-theme here of

advocating for war under false pretenses and some allusions to similar circumstances in the 2nd

Gulf War. Hoganson does not make this allusion but it's something that was noticeable. What

Hoganson does mention however is this idea of manhood as a political tool. Jingo's frequently

regarded honor as a legit and persuasive rationale for war. The jingo's suggested that war could

be a valid solution to the country's social, political and economic problems. (p. 70)

Women on the other hand were sympathetic to Cubans but much less desirous of war.

they did not regard honor and chivalry in a way that demanded violence in response to

insults. Anti-interventionists argued that war over a point of honor was akin to murder. In

their push
towards war, jingoism bypassed partisan boundaries, and their belligerence was encouraged by

the fact that the political system equated a militant attitude with good leadership. Those that

did not adopt this mindset were at a political disadvantage.(p. 79-82)

Chapter 4: Chapter 4 is focused on President McKinley and his evolution from a cautious

arbitrationist, lambasted by the jingo's as unmanly, to a man who comes around to

interventionist sentiment and is celebrated for it. Besides general public pressure and political

scorn, framed as always in terms of gender politics, 2 major events led McKinley to his change

of opinion: the De Lome letter and the Maine disaster. (p. 88-90) The former was an

intercepted letter from a Spanish diplomat who described McKinley as "weak...", and thus fed

into the notions already expressed by jingo's of McKinley's leadership. (p. 89) The second

event occurred a week later when the U.S.S. Maine appeared to be attacked off the coast of

Havana. Jingo's reacted with fervor despite no conclusive evidence linking Spain to the act.

The jingo's and interventionists widely criticized McKinley for having no backbone; Teddy

Roosevelt compared him to a chocolate éclair. Many critics openly pined for Andrew Jackson

rather than McKinley because of his manly warrior nature. Ironically Andrew Jackson is

commonly regarded by historians as one of America's worst presidents. McKinley had his own

supporters however, having belonged to the older generation that took part in the Civil War,

McKinley embodied old middle class notions of manhood that championed moral virtue, self

control and higher reasoning. (p. 94)

Chapter 5: McKinley is pressured into war because, Hoganson states, "the political system

would not permit otherwise". (p. 106) 200,000 men enlist in the war effort and many women's
groups pledge their support. The fighting in Cuba lasted only 3 1/2 months. The Cuban

revolutionaries, once painted as chivalrous brave men and virtues idyllic women, now were

regarded as cowardly and dishonorable. Cuban revolutionaries were prevented by American

troops from entering Havana. The justification for this decision was based on the supposition

that the Cubans would loot, rape and pillage the Spanish inhabitants. Racial prejudices

accounted for this shift in perception.

One side effect of the successful invasion of Cuba was the political benefits it gave to

jingo's. The war propped up notions of manhood and aided bellicose politicians in gaining

power and influence. Amongst those that benefited included President McKinley himself, Teddy

Roosevelt and Admiral Dewey, thereby continuing the tradition of Americans glorifying and

electing military figures to public office. (p. 110) Educated middle class and high class citizens

known as 'dudes', criticized before the war for being the opposite of the manly ideal, won new

acclaim and prestige after the war; Dewey 'the Dude' was chief amongst these. Another

positive side effect of the war was that it tended to reconcile the post-reconstruction North-

South regional tensions. The man who best symbolized this reconciliation was congressman

Joseph Wheeler who resigned his seat to serve as a general in the war to much acclaim. (p 114)

One observer noted the irony of the nation being divided by war and then becoming united by

it. The unifying effects of war are a noteworthy theme.

Amongst the negative side effects of war were exclusionary consequences of militarist

political thought. Such ideas served to reinforce sexist notions of manhood and became a

barrier for suffragettes seeking to enter the political arena. Despite many women's groups
actively aiding the war effort, the glory of victory was mostly reserved for male soldiers. Susan

B. Anthony lamented that men's military endeavors were more glorified than the women who

aided them, and Clara Barton publicly criticized the self-aggrandizement of the Rough Riders. (p.

127-128) Anti-suffragettes claimed that transfer of power from the military sex to the unmilitary

sex would involve a change in the character of the nation. Similar fears of social degeneracy

would be revisited in the following chapter. African-Americans too wished to see their social and

political capital furthered, but encountered resistance from white southern men who still

harbored racist notions of black men in leadership positions. Hoganson ends the chapter by

explaining that the groundwork for U.S. imperialism was laid with martial theories, which

worked in unison with racial and class assumptions, to justify U.S. control over Cuba and the

Philippines. (p. 132)

Chapter 6: This chapter shifts focus to the Philippines and marks a decided shift in how

Americans viewed their own foreign policy. Whereas the war in Cuba could be viewed as a

response to insult, a defense of chivalry and honor, the war in the Philippines was clearly

recognized as an imperialistic endeavor. This was a very brutal war where 126,000 Filipino's and

4,000 Americans died.(p. 133) Hoganson cites economic motives for the decision to get

involved but primarily what caused Americans to set aside their traditional democratic ideals in

pursuit of empire was the belief that that Filipino's were uncivilized and unfit for self

governance.

Filipino's were painted as savage, dishonorably warlike, prone to rape, intellectually immature

and feminine.(p. 134-137)

 Imperialism was regarded as a means to save the social and political fabric of the nation.

Americans set out to civilize, tame and discipline the Filipino's and President McKinley

supported this notion of stewardship.(p. 150) Hoganson argues that imperialists believed

holding colonies would prevent social degeneracy, and cited British imperialists who agreed as

well as the success in Cuba. The common fraternalism of the soldier was glorified, seen as

regionally unifying and healthy for democracy. The three main proponents of empire cited were

Teddy Roosevelt, Sen. Albert Beveridge and Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, all of whom advocated for

a paternalistic attitude towards the Philippines.

Chapter 7: Not every American agreed with imperialist notions however. In 1898 the first anti-

imperialist lobby was formed on the grounds that such policies were un-American. (p. 156) The

anti-imperialists tended to be the older generation that lived through the Civil War, so political

conflict took on a generational divide. The most prominent figurehead of the anti-imperialist

movement during this time was Sen. George Frisbie Hoar, a proponent of a more calm,

reasoned and dispassionate approach to foreign policy in stark contrast to the belligerent young

men that tended to make up the imperialist ranks. Hoar was an elder statesman and a veteran

of the Civil War who supported women's suffrage and advocated government based on moral

principles and reason. Hoar and the anti's portrayed the imperialists as childish, boyish,

belligerent and immature. (p. 163-166)

The imperialists in large part were represented by men like Teddy Roosevelt, Sen.

Beveridge and Sen. Henry Lodge. They invoked the 'National Manhood' metaphor to justify

America's imperialist actions, likening the young Revolutionary era America to a child, the
contemporary America to a virile young man and anti-imperialists to passive old women. Sen.

Beveridge used the example of "China's paralysis through ancestor worship" as reason for why

America should not limit itself to what the founding fathers originally believed. (P. 161) Gender

bigotry was again transparent throughout, as imperialists claimed the mantle of virility and

manly resolve while deriding the anti's for lacking manhood for wanting to withdraw.

Chapter 8: The last chapter chronicles the decline of imperialist politics. Imperialism lost its

allure, says Hoganson, due to the degeneracy of manhood that came about as a result of

empire. Racialist and pseudo-scientific notions fed into the paranoia; English author Benjamin

Kidd asserted that white men could not acclimate to tropical zones and were susceptible to

diseases. The not-yet-then discredited theory of Lamarckian evolution convinced people that

men would grow brutal and immoral if exposed to a brutal and immoral environment. (p. 183)

Changes in perception of American soldiers also contributed as much-publicized atrocities

became commonplace. Methods of barbarism and savagery outraged the public and soldiers

were seen as victims of imperialist policies rather than perpetrators of crimes. (p. 184) Exposure

to immoral elements such as prostitution, alcoholism and miscegenation propelled American

doubts about colonialism. Hoganson ends by noting that, although the U.S. would find itself in

wars of intervention in the future, these wars took a different tone as endeavors of economic

and strategic value rather than being driven by concern for manhood. (p. 199)

Takeaways: Going in, the premise of this book sounded unusual to me. I've become accustomed

to thinking of history as merely a chronologic record of what happened, putting a greater

amount of value on political and social causes as the catalysts for change, but failing to accord
cultural causes equal importance. Hoganson seeks to address the 'why' part of history with this

book rather than the 'when', and through her analysis of cultural factors & preconceived

notions of gender, makes a convincing case that the misguided efforts to prop up ideals of

manhood in large part sped the United States towards the course of empire. While reading this

book I noticed several times that many of the warnings and lessons that Hoganson gleans from

this collection of historical evidence bore contemporary relevance. Themes of jingoism,

glorification of war, paternalism, conscious as well as subconscious invocation of archetypal

notions of manliness and femininity still appear in our politics. Hoganson did not hide her own

bias, as some figures who had a re-occurring role in this book (such as Teddy Roosevelt) came

across decidedly villainous; but that speaks to the ongoing relevance of this debate between

modern day expansionists vs. isolationists. Overall this book was easy to read and quite

interesting.

Questions: The questions I would ask Hoganson pertain to modern day U.S. foreign policy. I

wonder where she stands on current examples of U.S. aggression and interventionism, whether

she would advocate for interventionism on a case-by-case basis or rule out all such acts out of

general principle?