historians and roosevelt, teddy roosevelt the racist
ON HISTORIANS’ CHANGING PERCEPTIONS OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT PRE-1950s AND POST-1940s historiography Roosevelt history
05-18-05
Introduction
Theodore Roosevelt was a part of two important and diverse historical periods. These were the late 1800s and the early 1900s. Roosevelt lived through the Populist era and served as the United States president in the Progressive era. During these periods, traditional values were being eroded by saloons, brothels, and gambling. The ideology of both major political parties was changing. Factionalism increased as a consequence. Peoples’ whole way of life was changing rapidly. America went from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy and from a rural environment to an urban environment and from a producer’s culture to a consumer’s culture. Many of the differences between Americans became sectional. Manifest Destiny had been achieved, and America finally stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The “Great Indian Danger” had been quelled, but now Spain and the United States were fighting over colonial islands. Factories and small businesses escalated in number. Immigrants were coming to America so quickly that citizens thought America was becoming another Europe. Workers wanted more rights and organized to get them. Violent labor movements followed. Radical reforms in government and politics were taking place, but many reformers viewed them as making America more democratic. A stronger position was taken against corruption and vice in the government. People wanted businesses to be more responsible as well. Millions of people were living in cities, which at first brought disease and water problems. City dwellers wanted living conditions improved, especially in the areas where poor immigrants were residing.
Theodore Roosevelt was a product of all these continuing circumstances. In the middle of it all, he became president at forty-two when President William McKinley was assassinated. Some historians have considered TR’s entry into the American presidency to be not only the close of the nineteenth century but also the beginning of the modern era. Probably no other president can be as interesting to study as “Teddy” Roosevelt. Indeed, historians have had an interesting, but conflicting, time in examining and analyzing the man. How historians have interpreted Roosevelt as a political figure over the decades is the focus in this paper.
Methodology
The opinions, portrayals, and historiography that are expressed in this essay are based completely on book reviews organized by decades beginning in the 1920s and concluding in the 1990s. JSTOR was the only electronic database used to collect the reviews. A computer search was conducted by decade in order to find the books that had the most reviews. At least three books were selected from each decade, but a few books with only one review were selected so that no decade would overshadow another in the analysis. The book reviews were then arranged by the decades in which they were published. They were read in that order, ascending from the 1920s to the 1990s. The significance of this methodology is that the reader of the reviews gets to experience explosively how historians’ opinions, beliefs, criticisms, interests, research, and even their writing style changes over the years. Discussion of the reviews is presented bluntly without narrative and prose, which makes for dry reading. However, when the works cited are reviews, instead of the actual books, bland writing derived from them should not be surprising. It is to be hoped that the methodological significance supplants this blandness.
Exposition
Theodore Roosevelt, the twenty-sixth president, died in 1919. Although he had not held office since 1909, he remained politically active until 1919. Many believed that he would have been the Republican presidential candidate in 1920. Therefore, whatever reviews or books one reads a decade or so after TR’s death must be read cautiously. When a president is recently deceased, it is the rare historian who will break the somber mood with a caustic pen. It is not coincidental that the first major books on TR were biographies written by close friends and associates. On the other hand, TR was viewed as an anarchist by many Republicans for his role in splitting the GOP in 1912. One has the tendency to think, then, that his detractors from that era would be undeterred in voicing or writing in the 1920s their negative judgment of Roosevelt. For the most part, none came.
The 1920s were marked by nonhostile biographies of this president. William Thayer’s biography is the result of being a close friend. Thayer believed such a biography was needed because historians have “fallen too much into the habit of imagining that only hostile critics tell the truth” (Paxson, 306). Fascinating is the story of how Thayer tried to dissuade TR from leaving the Republican Party for the Progressive Party. Though critical at times, especially in that Thayer practically says TR founded the Progressive Party, Thayer’s work is a celebration of TR. Of course TR did not start the Progressive Party. Thayer overlooks that Republican ideology was already changing drastically, and the split in the Progressive movement was underway before TR jettisoned the GOP.
Lawrence Abbott, also a TR friend, did his biography on TR the man instead of TR the president. Abbott noted how TR “disregarded the stations in life of those with whom he associated” (James, 278). TR was courageous but gentle. His getting the Panama Canal was the greatest act he performed for America and the world. Later historians portray TR as recklessly and authoritatively “taking” the Canal.
As another close friend of TR’s, William Draper Lewis’s biography is notable because it includes a laudable preface by William Howard Taft. It was with frustration for Taft as president that TR ran for president on the Progressive Party ticket. In this preface, Taft regrets that TR was not in office during World War I. Joseph Bishop’s work is the “authorized” biography of TR, and it is mostly fact-reporting history. It has also been referred to as nothing more than a “eulogy” (Lingley, 571).
The reviews in the 1930s brought the first consideration of race into historians’ analysis of TR. Specifically, it is referred to as “race prejudice” by Paul Taylor who reviews Thomas Bailey’s work on the “Japanese American Crisis” that took place from 1905 to 1909. TR mistakenly thought the Japanese opposition in California was due to “race prejudice,” but Californians were bitterly opposing immigration mostly because of economic reasons. White American laborers in that state were finding it quite difficult to compete with the seemingly endless number of Japanese immigrants. The Japanese rights to public education and ownership of land were also being refuted. Race was, nevertheless, a contributing factor. Many people in that time believed Japan and America were about to go to war over the anti-Japanese actions in California. TR sent practically all of the United States Navy on a tour as a diplomatic move—most will say intimidation—toward Japan. Roosevelt, being the skilled diplomat that he was, averted war with the Japanese. When the navy arrived, the Japanese viewed it as a courtesy rather than a threat. Although TR did not fix the bad situation between the Japanese and Californians, for Bailey, TR’s overall handling in this foreign affair was a success.
Henry Pringle’s biography is the first appearance of the word “egotism” in relation to TR. In fact, Pringle’s biography has been called a debunker of the early biographies in which TR is nothing but the great American hero (A.Z., 363), and a 1990s historian called Pringle’s biography “reductionist” (Collin, 737). Pringle’s perception of the former president is that TR was “adolescent” until the very end. TR had a tendency to write about himself excessively and boastfully. He was impulsive. The way he dealt with Congress and the courts showed that he was highhanded. He did not make long-term plans. His life was characterized by “inconsistencies and contradictions” (A.Z., 365). In 1900, TR said he would not be vice president, but he changed his mind a few days later. When he left office in 1904, he said he would never run for the presidency again, which he did again eight years later. His knowledge in international affairs was deficient. TR’s ambition was also “adolescent” (Lingley, 571). Roosevelt left the position of New York police commissioner in failure. In the end, Pringle’s biography is called a “revaluation” of TR (Lingley, 571). It should be noted that much of Pringle’s evidence is from material created before TR was president. That is, alot of Pringle’s opinions were formed based on TR’s youth. It is surprising that a negative personification of TR would appear so close to his death. The 1930’s history of TR would still be positive overall despite Pringle’s opinions.
The 1940s was a small decade for specific works on TR. The major ones focused on TR’s role and influence in the United States Navy and, later in the decade, on the Progressive movement. TR was strenuous and successful in his efforts to improve the navy technologically or mechanically. He believed the only use of the Navy should be for offense (Trexler, 271). The main purpose of the United States Navy was to “destroy the enemy and not to defend its coastline” (H.W.R., 286). TR was an able assistant secretary of the navy, but his influence was felt even more as president. Only seven major ships existed when he became president, but there were twenty-two when he left (Trexler, 271). TR’s legacy with the navy is that he alone brought it out of “medieval” times (H.W.R., 285). The United States Navy had been considered the fifth best in the world; when TR left office after eight years, it was considered to be second, and only a close second, to Germany (H.W.R., 286).
George Mowry’s work regards the Progressive movement. TR did not start it, but he was its number one agent (Buley, 328). Mowry also notes TR’s proclivity for bombast and contradictions, but TR was still a patriot.
The works in the 1950s continued to focus on the Progressive movement and TR’s involvement in it. This is also the decade in which Germany opens its archives for documents relative to TR, but they do not lead to any major interpretive change of the former president. Nevertheless, this is the decade where opinions of TR in the reviews go rapidly and overall from positive to negative. Much more attention is given during this decade to TR’s impact on international affairs, especially with Germany, China, and Japan. The word “imperialism” becomes mentioned and linked with TR widely. By the end of the 1950s, TR’s legacy goes from that of a nationalist to an imperialist. TR’s probity becomes questioned more regularly in this decade. All of the negativity overshadows John Morton Blum’s book in which he focuses on TR’s domestic policy far more than his predecessors. Blum’s discussion of TR’s domestic policy is mostly fact-reporting though.
In Howard Beale’s book, the author considers TR’s foreign policy matters a failure. According to Beale, TR misunderstood the Japanese and he “contributed to the growth of an imperialism that was later to produce tragic results” (Pratt, 163). TR “helped shape our twentieth-century China policy, and he did not shape it well” (DeConde, 274). Beale also spends considerable time on the true-or-false communicade between TR and a German leader.
Germany had been threatening Venezuela with warfare if the Latin American country did not repay its financial obligations to Germany. Germany eventually agreed to arbitration of the matter. According to TR, he was responsible for this about-face by Germany because he had issued the German leader an ultimatum (DeConde, 275). No evidence for TR’s claim exists in either American or German archives, yet TR frequently went outside his war department to make decisions. Obviously this incident has been a hotbed topic for historians. The consensus in the 1950s is that TR lied about the ultimatum. This is the decade in which TR goes from being a boaster to a liar.
Books in the 1960s regarding TR decreased in number but were not as negative. Those that are available continued with TR’s foreign policy, especially with Japan. This is the decade in which Japan opened its archives to American historians. None of the new documents led to a reinterpretation of TR or his handling of international affairs. TR is credited in Raymond Esthus’ book as only one reason why the Russians and Japanese were able to work out a peace treaty during their negotiations in 1905 (Braisted, 100). TR’s role had heretofore been given far too much significance. According to Esthus, Japan knew it had to end the Russo-Japanese War and the Russian diplomat at the negotiations ignored orders to stop the negotiations. Those were more important reasons for the success of the eventual agreements. Esthus’ portrayal of TR overall is not negative.
G. Wallace Chessman, in his work on TR in the middle of the 1960s, compares TR the governor to TR the president and shows that he was actually consistent from one position to the next. In fact, says Chessman, TR developed as New York governor many of his ideas and methods that he later used in decision making as president (Garraty, 718). Even though Roosevelt was infamous as the “trust buster,” his primary objective in destroying trusts was to protect the public that he thought was in danger. TR the great conservationist finally appears because of Chessman’s work. Chessman also devotes alot of time to TR’s participation in labor relations and in his part as reformer. By and large, Chessman portrays TR as an able and capable civil servant, in spite of his often making decisions due to “political expediency” (Bolt, 653). It is because of Chessman’s work that previous historians are now being questioned because they claimed TR to be laden with inconsistencies (Burton as reviewer, 167).
By the 1970s it become clear that nothing pertinently new about TR would be presented to revolutionize the facts of his political career. The 1970s was a conflicting decade for the historical heritage of TR. In addition to previous matters studied, historians in the 1970s focused on his personality, his intellectualism, and his state of mind. During this decade, TR was directly, specifically, and openly referred to as a racist.
David Burton’s book has been called an intellectual biography (Grant, 637). In fact, Burton feels that TR had “a considerable intellectual ability” (Grant, 637). TR was pragmatic, and what others see as inconsistencies, Burton sees as Roosevelt positively being able to adjust to “pressures from both the left and right” (Grant, 637). The subtitle of Burton’s book on TR is “A Confident Imperialist.”
In Edmund Morris’ work, TR goes from being a great hunter to someone who enjoys slaughtering animals (Hoogenboom, 718). In Hoogenboom’s review, it is stated that “killing brought him peace” and that killing a bear one day helped TR “become interested in his baby” (p. 718). There cannot be a more silly characterization of TR, especially considering how many animals he brought to the Smithsonian Institute when he returned from his African safari. TR’s wife and mother had both died on the same day, but characterizing TR in such a manner has to be a huge historical stretch. In another review it is stated that TR could not wait “to get to Cuba to kill somebody,” which is just as fatuous (McFarland, 1492). Morris also portrays TR in a disapproving light as having a severe hunger for power, but it cannot be gainsaid that ninety-five percent of the presidents have the same drive. As active as TR was, he was constantly sick. He had asthma, weight fluctuations, and diarrhea (Shore, 293). TR was a racist, but his “racism was tempered by his admiration” for the few Indians and blacks who proved themselves individually to be good Americans (Hoogenboom, 719). To Morris, TR’s shortcomings were his belligerence and his egotism—traits others have optimistically described.
Based on Morris’ portrayal of TR in his youth, the psychologist Miles Shore said that “the exceptional capacity of action to replace awareness of psychological pain is nowhere better demonstrated than in Morris’ biography” (p. 288). From reading Morris’ book, Shore was able to say that TR was a “society snob; a buffoon ridiculed by his political opponents as a fool and madman; a political idealist and seer whose jingoism hid a vision which was twenty years ahead of its time; a prude; a founder of Progressivism; a voracious, erudite reader, a fistfighter; a little boy at heart; a cowboy, and a warmonger who at the top of San Juan Hill became a peacemaker” (p. 290). TR’s patriotism was sometimes “ludicrous” (Shore, 290). There is no doubt that a “leading personal motif in Roosevelt’s life was his relentless effort to overcome a deep fear of helplessness” (Shore, 290). What is comical about Shore’s last statement is that he bases it on a book about TR and a book written by someone who neither knew TR himself or anyone who knew TR personally. The great irony in Morris and Shore’s take on TR is that in 1912 at the American Historical Association, TR stated that historians should not allow scientific methodology to overshadow “imagination and philosophical speculation” (Gatewood, 418). One wonders if TR would feel the same way now?
In John Gable’s book on the Progressive era, TR was not a “berserker” who had “lost touch with political reality” (Ziewacz, 457). The Progressive Party was an important tool for social education (Bannister, 450), and the Progressives were “more forward- than backward-looking” (Harbaugh, 1177). Frederick Marks closed the 1970s as a TR fan. Marks concentrated on TR’s diplomacy, and he brought attention back to the historical dispute of whether TR threatened Germany with war if it did not arbitrate its dispute with Venezuela. Despite having no hard evidence, he believes that TR told the truth about his threatening the Germans. That TR’s claim was true became the consensus after the 1950s. Marks wrote that historians have exaggerated TR’s belligerence, hastiness, and hotheadedness (Neu, 663). TR managed the Panamanian situation correctly. What others have narrated as expediency and rash behavior, Marks identified as caution and patience (Neu, 663). Moreover, Roosevelt was not reckless and he was not juvenile (Gould, 377).
Just as historians have said TR was marked with inconsistencies and political conflictions, the 1970s as a decade for studying TR contained the same problem. One sure characterization emanating from the 1970s literature, however, is that this decade demonstrated a higher degree of acceptance of historical speculation within academia. Indeed, because of Mark’s work, his reviewer Lewis Gould called upon historians to “move beyond the hoary questions that engross” them, such as whether TR was an honest person, a flagrant boaster, a moral president, or just a bully (Gould, 380).
The 1980s opened with Thomas Dyer’s book. Dyer refers to his book as “revisionist” (Noble, 468), but it is not clear how it is revisionist. His is a book on TR’s racial philosophy, but that philosophy had already been well established before the 1980s. TR did not worry about the Indians, because they were a vanishing race. Blacks were more problematic to TR because they had a “higher birthrate than Anglo-Saxons” (Noble, 468). Roosevelt eventually started using “English-speaking” in place of “Anglo-Saxon” (Osthaus, 129).
Dyer’s book came out simultaneously with Alysius Norton’s work in which TR is shown to have been a great historian. He was a Harvard graduate who wrote at least fifty books and became president of the American Historical Association. His literary effort suggests there was much more to the persona of this man than the stereotyped progressive cowboy (Lamon, 463). The reviews of the mid-1980s had a puzzling circumstance regarding TR’s foreign policy in that Richard Collin rebuts the current trend of describing TR as an imperialist. TR did not “lust after the Philippines” and did not contribute to the starting of war with Spain as much as historians claim (Marks, 1010). In effect, Collin reverted TR into the great nationalist and practical president. Unfortunately for Collin, the reviewers did not agree with him. One reviewer said Collin’s book was a perfect example of “premature publication” (Pletcher, 492).
The works in the 1990s got more narrow and specific. Lewis Gould’s writing on Roosevelt provided elucidation to TR and domestic policy perhaps more than any historian before him. Where Gould differs from others is that he believes William McKinley rather than Roosevelt should be proclaimed the first modern president (Anders, 1475). On face value, one would have to disagree with Gould. TR carried on, for the remainder of the term, with McKinley’s administration after his assassination. However, McKinley’s presidency really took place in the very late 1800s rather than the 1900s. Few presidential historians, and still fewer political scientists, are going to push the modern presidency back into the nineteenth century. What is more, TR’s political style was far too different from McKinley’s to permit the latter from receiving the modernity honor based on the continuation of a deceased president’s plans. That would be akin to what-if history.
Surely another debatable point will be the classification of TR among the presidents. The reviewer John Milton Cooper says Gould considers TR a second-rate president because his presidency is lacking “great crises and political upheavals” (Cooper, 630). It can be certain that what both Cooper and Gould do not deem to be great crises today were urgent and precarious situations in the early twentieth century. One also wonders if future historians will fear giving TR first-rate status as president because of his views on race? Obviously no academician would call a president one of the greatest when that president has been widely labeled a racist. Currently, however, TR is ranked near the top by many academics.
On the Progressive movement, Gould is another historian who believes TR should be given more credit as a founder. As president, TR was highhanded, his occasional contempt for Congress stopped him from achieving greater reforms, and his bureaucratic supervision smacked of power abuse (Anders, 1476). Gould’s work has been acclaimed because it focuses almost exclusively on the presidency of TR instead of his life before and after the presidency (Cooper, 630).
David Burton, who published in the 1970s an “intellectual” book on TR, returned in the late 1990s. Whereas Burton could be accused earlier of being a TR advocate, the label is not so clearly attached twenty years later. Burton deliberates on TR’s many mistakes. He writes that Roosevelt should not have removed Clara Barton as president of the American Red Cross; botched his public relations with black soldiers; spoke without thoughtful deliberation when he stated he would not run for a third consecutive term as president; and run on a different ticket in 1912, which was the most horrible mistake of all (Ninkovich, 727). Burton does leave a good perception of TR for the reader in regards to how he managed foreign policy though. He also credits Roosevelt with helping to bring America into the modern world (Ninkovich, 727).
Peggy and Harold Samuels trash TR in their book that is specifically centered on the Rough Riders’ battle at San Juan Hill. Allan Millett, a reviewer of their book, says that they take TR to task for “his blood-lust, neurotic search for military glory, narcissistic inability to recognize that he was not alone in Cuba, and his brilliant manipulation of the reporters who followed the Rough Riders everywhere” (p. 634). These authors, along the lines of author Miles Shore, “investigate the psychic roots of TR’s obsession with courage, physical action, pulling triggers, manliness, and the good opinion of his select groups of peers” (Millett, 634). The reviewer Oliviero Bergamini, based on the Samuels’ book, characterizes the Spanish-American War as TR’s “big chance of his life to rise to ultimate national prominence” (p. 725). What other reason could there have been for TR to resign as assistant secretary of the navy? This assessment alone indicates the sometimes shallowness of the Samuels’ book. Still, they convincingly show that San Juan Hill had been assaulted by other soldiers before the Rough Riders led their famous charge. In short, the Samuels’ book is a TR myth-buster.
Other books that closed the 1990s are William Tilchin’s and Gail Bederman’s. Bederman’s insight into TR from a gendered approach reflects TR negatively (Ambrosius, 1710). Both Bederman and Tilchin address Roosevelt’s views on race and his worry over white “racial suicide” due to the prolific birth rate of blacks. TR is referred to specifically as a racist, but Tilchin mitigates TR’s late twentieth-century concept of racism by not making it as rigid as others have done (Ambrosius, 1709). His portrayal of TR is actually positive in that Tilchin believes historians will one day regard TR as the greatest president of statescraft (Ambrosius, 1710). He also addresses TR in the nationalist role rather than the imperialist.
Conclusion
It should be understood that it is historians who are claiming that TR was contradictory in nature and that his presidency was full of inconsistencies. This characterization did not truly start until the 1950s. TR never thought of himself or his actions as being inconsistent or paradoxical. He made his decisions based on what seemed to be the right solution in that particular time. In fact, most people who have their lives scrutinized from childhood to adulthood will probably have a contradictory nature. Historians writing about TR’s contradictions should not forget that many of their perceived contradictions occurred in different periods of TR’s life and also when he held different positions in government. It is not shortsighted to think that what one does as historian, soldier, or police commissioner will be markedly different from what one does as governor or president. The responsibilities, duties, and oversight involved with each position are markedly different.
Moreover, the situation of having blacks lead military regiments—or going into battle at all—is completely different from having one black in charge in some government position. TR did not want blacks in his military, but he appointed blacks to positions in the federal government or punished whites in a small town for forcefully removing their black postmaster. Is this really a contradiction in racial policy? No, and it has been overblown by some historians. Many whites would not be good soldiers but would be excellent civil servants. That is not contradictory; that is logical. TR catered to Booker T. Washington and other blacks probably to increase his voter support from blacks in general. That cannot be contradiction in the late nineteenth century when it is still being done by some politicians today.
TR probably thought his giving seats to southern white delegates instead of southern black delegates at the convention of the Progressive Party was political expediency. His action here, however, was actually offensive and rude and politically inept. The decision even backfired because TR said those white delegates would work for the betterment of blacks within the government (Gerstle, citing Arthur Link, 483-488). That claim eventually caused the loss of many white southern voters for Roosevelt. Still, the decision to seat whites instead of blacks was not contradictory to what TR believed generally about blacks. TR, as most political candidates do today, was probably trying to bring in as many voters as possible. Southern white supremacist voters did not want candidates to reach out to all the constituents or possible voters of the candidate. Yet, to his detriment in the South, TR would reach out to them time and time again.
There is nothing uncertain about how TR felt toward blacks. TR thought the blacks as a race were immensely inferior to the white race, but individual blacks could prove themselves to be of value equal to whites, especially in American civic responsibility. That is why southern whites detested TR, and all of that is why part of Theodore Roosevelt’s legacy should not be based on contradiction.
When the reviews used in this analysis are considered collectively instead of just in decades, one aspect is missing from TR’s legacy. In none of the reviews is it shown that TR did a good job in foreign policy considering only that the United States was undergoing many firsts. His legacy in international affairs should be accompanied with a type of disclaimer that lets readers know TR had practically no predecessor upon which to base his Third World experiences. McKinley had the Spanish-American War, but McKinley’s three short years as president might not qualify as experience for TR. In every new situation that the American presidency was thrust into for the first time, TR designed a solution as he went alone. Instead of seeing Roosevelt from that perspective, some historians portray him as being a most inconsistent president. They should not.
The other differences of TR’s portrayal become remarkably distinguishable after the start of the 1950s. Before the middle of the century, TR was a good sportsman or great hunter, a great story-teller, a patriot, a nationalist, a hero, a valiant warrior, an able president, an effective diplomat, a great all-around American, and a mere agent in the Progressive movement. Everything he did as a Rough Rider or as a president was done only to make America better for the majority of Americans. After mid-century, TR became an animal butcher, a liar, a war monger, an imperialist, a racist, an Indian hater, an egotistical man, a self-centered politician, a careless diplomat, a fickle president, and a founder of Progressivism. Not even a modicum of new evidence has been presented since the 1950s that has justified historians reaching such conclusions about TR. Even using the same evidence or secondary literature on TR, some twentieth-century historians have challenged TR’s legacy that was created and promoted by their predecessors. In other words, historians who lived during TR’s time and the historians who came afterwards to extract inferences from written material have competing interests and conflicting views. There can be only one explanation for the dissimilar portrayals and opinions of TR: historians themselves have changed.
By reading the works post-1950 we do not know TR the president better. Rather, we better know historians and what they want the current generation to think about TR. By reading the works post-1950, we can better see how society itself has changed, how its values have been molded, how its concept of justice has metamorphosed. By taking the reviews as a whole from 1920 to the end of the 1990s, we can say accurately how two different generations of historians see the political life of Theodore Roosevelt.
Which one is correct, however, is an entirely different matter.
Works Cited
Book Reviews
Lawrence F. Abbott. “Impressions of Theodore Roosevelt.”
Review author: D. S. Muzzey
Political Science Quarterly Vol. 35, No. 1 (Mar., 1920), pp. 136-143.
Thomas A. Bailey. “Theodore Roosevelt and the Japanese-American Crises. An Account of the
International Complications arising from the Race Problem on the Pacific Coast.”
Review author: Meribeth E. Cameron
The Journal of Modern History Vol. 7, No. 3 (Sep., 1935), pp. 356-357.
Review author: Paul Hibbert Clyde
The Mississippi Valley Historical Review Vol. 21, No. 4 (Mar., 1935), pp. 578-579.
Review author: E. T. Williams
The American Journal of International Law Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr., 1936), pp. 339-340.
Review author: Paul S. Taylor
The American Journal of Sociology Vol. 41, No. 2 (Sep., 1935), p. 270.
Review author: George Bernard Noble
The American Political Science Review Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jun., 1935), pp. 503-504.
Howard K. Beale. “Theodore Roosevelt and the Rise of America to World Power.”
Review author: Seward W. Livermore
The American Historical Review, Vol. 62, No. 4. (Jul., 1957), pp. 947-948.
Review author: W. Stull Holt
Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 72, No. 3. (Sep., 1957), pp. 436-438.
Review author: Alexander DeConde
The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 29, No. 3. (Sep., 1957), pp. 274-275.
Review author: Julius W. Pratt
The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 44, No. 1. (Jun., 1957), pp. 162-163.
Joseph B. Bishop. “Theodore Roosevelt and his Time: Shown in his Own Letters.”
Review author: Frederic L. Paxson
The American Historical Review Vol. 26, No. 3 (Apr., 1921), pp. 552-554.
Review author: J. A. James
The Mississippi Valley Historical Review Vol. 7, No. 1 (Jun., 1920), pp. 76-79.
John Morton Blum. “The Republican Roosevelt.”
Review author: Malcolm C. Moos
The Journal of Politics Vol. 17, No. 3 (Aug., 1955), pp. 466-467.
David Burton. “Theodore Roosevelt.”
Review author: Melvin I. Urofsky
The Journal of American History, Vol. 61, No. 1. (Jun., 1974), p. 236.
Review author: H. Roger Grant
The History Teacher, Vol. 7, No. 4. (Aug., 1974), p. 637.
David Burton. “Theodore Roosevelt, American Politician: An Assessment.”
The Journal of American History, Vol. 85, No. 2. (Sep., 1998), p. 728.
Review author: Frank Ninkovich
G. Wallace Chessman. “Theodore Roosevelt and the Politics of Power.”
Review author: Martin L. Fausold
The American Historical Review, Vol. 75, No. 2. (Dec., 1969), pp. 599-600.
Review author: David H. Burton
The Journal of American History, Vol. 56, No. 1. (Jun., 1969), p. 167.
Richard H. Collin. “Theodore Roosevelt, Culture, Diplomacy, and Expansion: A New View of
American Imperialism.”
Review author: David M. Pletcher
The Journal of American History, Vol. 73, No. 2. (Sep., 1986), pp. 491-492.
Review author: Frederick W. Marks III
The American Historical Review, Vol. 91, No. 4. (Oct., 1986), pp. 1009-1010.
Thomas G. Dyer. “Theodore Roosevelt and the Idea of Race.”
Review author: David H. Burton
The Journal of American History, Vol. 67, No. 3. (Dec., 1980), p. 716.
Review author: Carl R. Osthaus
The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 47, No. 1. (Feb., 1981), pp. 129-130.
Review author: David W. Noble
The American Historical Review, Vol. 86, No. 2. (Apr., 1981), pp. 467-468.
R. A. Esthus. “Theodore Roosevelt and Japan.”
Review author[s]: I. H. Nish
The English Historical Review, Vol. 84, No. 330. (Jan., 1969), pp. 208-209.
Raymond A. Esthus. “Theodore Roosevelt and Japan.”
Review author: William R. Braisted
The American Historical Review, Vol. 73, No. 1. (Oct., 1967), pp. 99-100.
Review author: William L. Neumann
The Journal of American History, Vol. 54, No. 1. (Jun., 1967), pp. 177-178.
John Allen Gable. “The Bull Moose Years: Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Party.”
Review author: William H. Harbaugh
The American Historical Review, Vol. 84, No. 4. (Oct., 1979), p. 1177.
Review author: Robert C. Bannister
The Journal of American History, Vol. 66, No. 2. (Sep., 1979), pp. 450-451.
Review author: Lawrence E. Ziewacz
The History Teacher, Vol. 12, No. 3. (May, 1979), pp. 457-458.
Lewis L. Gould. “The Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt.”
Review author: Richard H. Collin
The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 58, No. 4. (Nov., 1992), pp. 737-738.
Review author: John Milton Cooper, Jr.
The American Historical Review, Vol. 97, No. 2. (Apr., 1992), pp. 629-630.
Review author: Evan Anders
The Journal of American History, Vol. 78, No. 4. (Mar., 1992), pp. 1475-1476.
William Draper Lewis. “The Life of Theodore Roosevelt.”
Review author: J. A. James
The Mississippi Valley Historical Review Vol. 7, No. 1 (Jun., 1920), pp. 76-79.
Frederick W. Marks III. “Velvet on Iron: The Diplomacy of Theodore Roosevelt.”
Review author: Lewis L. Gould
Reviews in American History, Vol. 8, No. 3. (Sep., 1980), pp. 377-381.
Review author: Robert L. Beisner
The Journal of American History, Vol. 67, No. 2. (Sep., 1980), pp. 429-430.
Review author: Charles E. Neu
The American Historical Review, Vol. 86, No. 3. (Jun., 1981), p. 663.
Edmund Morris. “The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt.”
Review author: Miles F. Shore
Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 11, No. 2. (Autumn, 1980), pp. 287-294.
Review author: Gerald W. McFarland
The American Historical Review, Vol. 84, No. 5. (Dec., 1979), p. 1492.
Review author: Ari Hoogenboom
Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 94, No. 4. (Winter, 1979-1980), pp. 718-719.
George E. Mowry. “Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement.”
Review author: Harold L. Ickes
The American Historical Review, Vol. 52, No. 1. (Oct., 1946), pp. 150-152.
Review author: R. Carlyle Buley
The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 33, No. 2. (Sep., 1946), pp. 328-329.
George Mowry, Henry Steele, Richard Morris. “The Era of Theodore Roosevelt, 1900-1912.”
Review author: Dewey W. Grantham, Jr.
The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 46, No. 1. (Jun., 1959), pp. 155-156.
Review author: John M. Blum
The American Historical Review, Vol. 64, No. 3. (Apr., 1959), pp. 675-676.
Review author: Frank Freidel
Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 74, No. 1. (Mar., 1959), pp. 135-137.
Aloysius Norton. “Theodore Roosevelt.”
Review author: Lester C. Lamon
The History Teacher, Vol. 15, No. 3. (May, 1982), pp. 463-464.
Review author: Willard B. Gatewood, Jr.
The Journal of American History, Vol. 68, No. 2. (Sep., 1981), pp. 417-418.
Gordon O'Gara. “Theodore Roosevelt and the Rise of the Modern Navy.”
Review author: H. A. Trexler
The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 30, No. 2. (Sep., 1943), p. 271.
Review author: H. W. R.
The English Historical Review, Vol. 59, No. 234. (May, 1944), pp. 285-286.
Henry Pringle. “Theodore Roosevelt; A Biography.”
Review author: Robert E. Cushman
The American Political Science Review, Vol. 26, No. 2. (Apr., 1932), pp. 363-367.
Review author: A. Z.
International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1931-1939), Vol. 12, No. 2. (Mar., 1933), pp. 284-285.
Review author: Charles R. Lingley
The American Historical Review, Vol. 37, No. 3. (Apr., 1932), pp. 570-572.
Review author: Charles R. Lingley
The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 19, No. 1. (Jun., 1932), pp. 132-133.
Review author: Robert E. Cushman.
The American Political Science Review Vol. 26, No. 2 (Apr., 1932), pp. 363-367.
Theodore Roosevelt and G. Wallace Chessman. “Governor Theodore Roosevelt: The Albany
Apprenticeship, 1898-1900.”
Review author: Peter Marshall
The English Historical Review, Vol. 82, No. 322. (Jan., 1967), p. 198.
Review author: John A. Garraty
The American Historical Review, Vol. 71, No. 2. (Jan., 1966), pp. 718-719.
Review author: Robert Bolt
The Journal of American History, Vol. 52, No. 3. (Dec., 1965), pp. 652-653.
Peggy Samuels and Harold Samuels. “Teddy Roosevelt at San Juan: The Making of a
President.”
Review author: Oliviero Bergamini
The Journal of American History, Vol. 85, No. 2. (Sep., 1998), pp. 725-726.
Review author: Allan R. Millett
The Journal of Military History, Vol. 62, No. 3. (Jul., 1998), pp. 634-635.
William Roscoe Thayer. “Theodore Roosevelt, An Intimate Biography.”
Review author: Frederic L. Paxson
The American Historical Review Vol. 25, No. 2 (Jan., 1920), pp. 306-307.
Review author: J. A. James
The Mississippi Valley Historical Review Vol. 7, No. 1 (Jun., 1920), pp. 76-79.
Review author: D. S. Muzzey
Political Science Quarterly Vol. 35, No. 1 (Mar., 1920), pp. 136-143.
William Tilchin. “Theodore Roosevelt and the British Empire: A Study in Presidential
Statecraft.”
Review author: David H. Burton
The Journal of American History, Vol. 85, No. 2. (Sep., 1998), pp. 726-727.
Review author: Lloyd E. Ambrosius
The American Historical Review, Vol. 103, No. 5. (Dec., 1998), pp. 1709-1710.
Edward Wagenknecht. “The Seven Worlds of Theodore Roosevelt.”
Review author: Dewey W. Grantham, Jr.
The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 25, No. 2. (May, 1959), pp. 256-257.
Review author: John A. Garraty
The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 46, No. 1. (Jun., 1959), pp. 156-157.
Articles
Gary Gerstle, “Theodore Roosevelt and the Divided Character of American Nationalism,” (in
Revisiting the United States as a Nation-State) The Journal of American History, Vol. 86, No. 3, The Nation and Beyond: Transnational Perspectives on United States History: A Special Issue. (Dec., 1999), pp. 1280-1307.
Arthur Link, “Correspondence Relating to the Progressive Party’s Lilly White Policy in 1912,”
32 Journal of Negro History (January 1947): 81-89.
Richard Slotkin, “Nostalgia and Progress: Theodore Roosevelt’s Myth of the Frontier,”
American Quarterly Vol. 33, No. 5 (Winter, 1981), 608-637.