Presidents of War - Book Summary

Discover the convoluted journey of U.S. Presidents leading their nation into battle.

The decision to go to war is arguably the most challenging any head of state must make. It's not merely about budget allocations or geopolitical repercussions — the human cost is enormous. Every declaration of war means sending citizens to their death, tearing children away from their parents, and parents from their children.

As we delve into the content of the book "Presidents of War", we uncover a fascinating tale of how various U.S. Presidents, despite the gravity of their decisions, found themselves entangled in conflicts that often proved unnecessary, causing irreversible loss of lives and wealth. Indeed, some wars, such as the Civil War under Lincoln and World War Two under Roosevelt, were, in essence, unavoidable. However, even these revered leaders weren't immune to making decisions that, in hindsight, seem questionable.

Through our exploration, we will encounter Presidents who were coaxed into unwanted warfare by both public pressure and the media, those who responded to foreign aggression, and even those who initiated conflicts based on crude, self-serving motives. Yet, a recurring theme permeates these narratives — a steady move away from the Founding Fathers' vision of a democratically decided process of engaging in warfare.

Within our journey, you'll discover:

- How the United States participated in acquiring over a million square miles of territory,

- The ways Abraham Lincoln, a figure celebrated for his liberal humanitarian values, blatantly disregarded civil rights, and

- The whispers Roosevelt received about an impending Japanese attack prior to the event of Pearl Harbor.

Examining Thomas Jefferson's diplomatic mastery in avoiding a clash with Great Britain.

While this book's core focus is on Presidents steering their nation into war, it would be remiss not to highlight those who expertly maneuvered political landscapes to avert conflict. An exemplary figure in this context is none other than Thomas Jefferson, who skillfully managed to dodge a full-blown war with Great Britain in 1807.

The catalyst for this near-conflict was the infamous Chesapeake Affair. On June 22, 1807, the American frigate USS Chesapeake found itself intercepted by the British ship, HMS Leopard, in the waters off Virginia. The British vessel was on the hunt for deserters from their Navy and demanded that the American ship submit to inspection.

The Chesapeake's defiance resulted in the Leopard opening fire, leading to the death of four American sailors. The Chesapeake ultimately surrendered, and four sailors were apprehended on accusations of desertion from the British Navy.

In a country where the War of Independence was still etched in collective memory, anti-British sentiment was high. The Chesapeake Affair only fanned these flames, with a frenzied press and indignant public rallying for war against Britain.

All the while, Jefferson was firmly set against the declaration of war.

A pacifist at heart, Jefferson was deeply averse to the financial and human costs of warfare. His concern also stemmed from his uncertainty about America's ability to defeat Britain once more. With his forces weakened by spending cuts, he acknowledged that America's fledgling and unseasoned navy was no match for the formidable Royal Navy.

However, Jefferson was also cognizant of his country's thirst for retribution. He sent an envoy to London demanding the return of the captured sailors, an apology for the Chesapeake attack, and compensation. Jefferson astutely understood that any response from London would take months to arrive, hoping the intervening time would cool the nation's war fever.

In parallel, he readied the military, preparing for a diplomatic failure. To diffuse the escalating political tension, he reminded aggressive politicians that only Congress, as stipulated by the Constitution, could declare war. He cleverly refrained from calling an emergency session of Congress, fearing it may result in a war declaration, until the British reply was received.

Jefferson's stratagem paid off. The British acquiesced to his demands, and America's war fervor petered out. This instance of extraordinary restraint from the third U.S. President in steering clear of a potentially devastating war, however, did not find many takers among his successors.

James Madison's reluctant plunge into the War of 1812

The peace-loving approach of Thomas Jefferson wasn't typical among his successors. The case of James Madison, who took over after Jefferson, is a case in point. Had Madison exhibited a similar level of restraint and political finesse, the War of 1812 against the British might have been successfully averted.

However, the United States did have significant grievances, mostly born out of Britain's battle against France during the Napoleonic Wars.

Firstly, there was widespread anger over Britain's impressment of American sailors. Impressment referred to the forced conscription of seamen into military service, a common practice among naval powers. It usually entailed boarding a foreign merchant ship and commandeering its sailors.

The increased demand for sailors due to the Napoleonic Wars had amplified Britain's impressment activities. Between 1793 and 1812, over 15,000 American sailors had been impressed, pushing Anglo-American relations to the brink.

Secondly, Britain's restrictions on U.S. ships trading with Napoleonic France were hampering American economic growth. America viewed this move as an infringement on their independence and a violation of international law.

Yet, these issues might have been resolved diplomatically had it not been for Madison's enticement towards war.

One of the key instigators was Henry Clay, a fiery senator from Kentucky. With an audacity that was alarming, Clay contended that a war with Britain was crucial to uphold American honor. In addition, Clay posited that a war would facilitate the capture of a vast stretch of disputed territory from British Canada.

Madison was hesitant to initiate a destructive war against Britain. However, the political tide was swiftly turning against him.

A pro-war faction gradually took shape in Congress, with Henry Clay at its helm. Known as the "War Hawks," these politicians consistently agitated for war, deriding Madison as indecisive and lacking in will.

In a last-ditch effort to avert war, Madison sought a promise from the British to cease impressment, intending to ask Congress for a declaration of war should the British refuse. However, the British rebuffed Madison, for they needed the sailors.

On June 1, 1812, Madison requested Congress to declare war on Britain, which they did by a count of 79 votes to 49. Ironically, the British had already agreed to stop interfering with French-American trade by that time — but due to the era's slow communication, Madison was uninformed.

The war began disastrously for the United States with a botched invasion of Canada and the seizure of Washington by British troops. But the Americans managed to claw their way back to victory, mostly owing to the British being preoccupied with the Napoleonic Wars.

Nevertheless, the subsequent war America would engage in unfolded much more smoothly.

James Polk's relentless pursuit of territorial expansion

The election of James Polk in 1845 ushered in one of America's most disreputable wartime sagas. While various wartime leaders have been responsible for regrettable decisions, none harbored more reprehensible motivations than President Polk.

As a seasoned politician from Tennessee, Polk manipulated a war with Mexico with one sole intention – to expand U.S. territories.

Polk firmly championed the concept of manifest destiny, the belief that, owing to their purported political and cultural superiority, white Americans were destined to populate all of North America. As American settlers moved west, seizing Native American territories, manifest destiny gained popularity. But for Polk, this concept had a broader scope: the white colonization of vast Mexican territories.

However, the American populace wouldn't support such an unethical initiative. Therefore, any outright hostility would be declined when Polk sought Congress' approval for a war. Consequently, Polk needed to contrive a pretext to fuel his desired conflict.

Texas had become a part of the United States in December 1845, following a war of independence against Mexico. Mexico insisted that the new Texan-Mexican border was the Nueces River, but Polk defied this by deploying U.S. troops to the banks of the Rio Grande further south, pointedly aiming cannons at the Mexican town of Matamoras. He knew his actions would provoke a Mexican reaction.

On April 26, 1846, Captain Seth Thornton's patrol of 80 men were ambushed by 1,600 Mexican soldiers. Eleven American soldiers lost their lives in this conflict, now known as the Thornton Affair. Following this, Polk convinced Congress to declare war against Mexico. The motion was passed with a 174 to 14 vote.

Polk had successfully skewed the situation to paint Mexico as the aggressor. Yet, the public was still oblivious to the extent of Polk's territorial ambitions. But his cabinet members weren't. James Buchanan, the Secretary of State, reminded Polk that the war declaration from Congress made no mention of acquiring Mexican territory.

Undeterred, Polk was determined to fulfill his vision of manifest destiny. After an intense and bloody war that spanned nearly two years and claimed thousands of lives, the United States emerged victorious in 1848. In the subsequent peace treaty, the U.S. annexed over one million square miles of Mexican territory, including modern-day California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah. In doing so, Polk saw the fulfillment of his manifest destiny vision.

Abraham Lincoln's erosion of civil liberties in a morally justified war

The election of Abraham Lincoln, a fervent anti-slavery advocate, as president in 1861, thrust the nation into turmoil. Seven southern states, economically dependent on expansive slave plantations, parted ways with Washington to proclaim their Confederate States of America.

In an effort to resolve the dispute diplomatically, Lincoln even pledged non-interference with slavery in the southern states. He guaranteed no military response unless it was thrust upon the government. Nonetheless, he maintained that the Confederacy held no validity and would not be politically recognized.

Despite Lincoln's peace efforts, the South was hell-bent on war. A southern newspaper, the Memphis Appeal, dubbed Lincoln an "abolition despot," while Texan Senator Louis Wigfall sent a provocative telegraph to Washington that read simply, "WAR WAR WAR."

Even though Lincoln guided his side to victory — a victory that cost more than 620,000 American lives — he never officially declared war on the Confederacy.

Lincoln believed that an official state of war would inherently recognize the Confederacy as an independent nation. The Constitution clearly prohibits states from seceding from the United States. Thus, the Confederates were seen as unlawful rebels.

But beneath this political play, Lincoln pragmatically readied his side for an inevitable full-scale war, enforcing a naval blockade on southern states and reinforcing the US Army with eight new regiments.

Despite his admirable qualities as a wartime leader, Lincoln also displayed autocratic tendencies. Known for his abolition of slavery, Lincoln ironically infringed upon civil liberties.

Following the murder of four U.S. soldiers by pro-rebellion rioters in Philadelphia, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the region stretching from Philadelphia to Washington. Habeas corpus is a law that mandates a person under arrest to be presented before a court for trial. Lincoln's aim was to forcefully maintain peace, but it came with a high price — individuals in this region could be detained indefinitely.

In the tumultuous state of Maryland, Lincoln declared martial law, suspending democratic governance and using the military to enforce peace. Lincoln argued that the Civil War warranted exceptional measures and a deviation from constitutional norms.

But Lincoln undertook these measures reluctantly and consistently asserted through his numerous speeches, letters, and memos that his expanded authority was only temporary and would cease with the end of the Civil War. A masterful communicator, Lincoln constantly engaged with the public through speeches, letters, and meetings, helping uplift morale and garnering support for the Union.

Eventually, Lincoln expanded the goals of the Civil War to include the abolition of slavery, transforming a government's battle against rebellion into a just war with a higher moral purpose — a remarkable accomplishment unparalleled for many years to come.

A case of misunderstanding lights the fuse of the Spanish-American War

In the year 1895, Cuba was a reluctant part of the Spanish Empire. That same year, an uprising erupted on the island, as its inhabitants engaged in guerrilla warfare against Spanish forces. Spanish General Valeriano "Butcher" Weyler, in an attempt to quell the rebellion, crammed one-third of the Cuban population into filthy, disease-riddled concentration camps where nearly 25 percent of them perished.

Americans, both ordinary citizens and politicians, watched these abhorrent events unfold virtually in their backyard with revulsion. Some newspapers and politicians vehemently demanded American military intervention.

Initially, President William McKinley was hesitant to exacerbate the situation. He pleaded with the Spanish to adhere to military law and even offered to purchase the island. Unfortunately, his pleas and offers fell on deaf ears, leading to a further deterioration of Spanish-American relations.

In the midst of this strained diplomatic scenario, the USS Maine exploded on February 15, 1898, sinking with 260 Americans on board. The vessel was docked in the Havana harbor at the time, with a mission to safeguard American lives and property. The U.S. Navy concluded that a Spanish sea mine was to blame for the disaster.

The press fanned the flames of war, whipping the public into a frenzy that politicians could not ignore. On April 20, 1898, Congress sanctioned McKinley’s appeal for military force to liberate Cuba from Spain. The next day, the U.S. Navy instituted a blockade around the island, marking the commencement of the Spanish-American war.

The tragic irony? It is highly unlikely that a Spanish mine caused the sinking of the Maine.

An investigation in 1974 led by Admiral Hyman Rickover ascertained that an internal fire that ignited the ship’s ammunition stores was the likely cause of the ship's destruction. Although a few military personnel held this suspicion at the time, their voices were lost in the clamor.

Despite launching the three-month war with the primary objective of liberating Cuba, McKinley's goals rapidly broadened.

There was a burgeoning public interest in an American empire at the time, a sentiment that McKinley echoed. While Cuba was still on the path to independence, McKinley set his sights on Spain's colonies in Guam, the Philippines, and Hawaii as American victories accumulated.

In a strategy that later became known as mission creep, McKinley escalated U.S. objectives in the Spanish-American war to include the annexation of these islands. He was partially driven by his intent to disseminate Christianity among the Filipinos and "civilize" them. However, his thirst for glory and his ambition to position America as a global power also played substantial roles.

By August 13, 1898, McKinley's objectives were realized, propelling the United States into an era of dominance.

Woodrow Wilson's deceptive promises in the face of World War One

With the commencement of World War One in Europe in 1914, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed a strict policy of neutrality. Even when a German submarine attacked the British ship Lusitania, resulting in the loss of 128 American lives, Wilson continued to advocate for calmness and caution. He urged politicians and media outlets to avoid making impulsive pronouncements.

However, as the conflict persisted, the number of American civilian casualties rose. In August 1915, a German attack on another British passenger ship claimed two more American lives. An incident in March 1916 led to four more Americans being injured. The general sentiment in America was leaning heavily towards the British, and many within the press and political elite were advocating for war.

Despite knowing the likelihood of war was high due to continued German attacks, Wilson made a misleading promise during his re-election campaign — he claimed that it was still possible for the U.S. to remain neutral. Mirroring America's shifting mood towards war, Wilson barely secured re-election.

Everything changed in January 1917 when the British intercepted the Zimmermann Telegram. This German missive offered Mexican officials support if they chose to wage war against the United States. This act left America with no option but to declare war on Germany, which it did on April 6, 1917.

Post this declaration, Wilson's decisions raised several questions.

Known for his rigid and self-righteous leadership style, Wilson treated any critique or political challenge to his decisions as personal affronts. He implemented a vague "loyalty test" among government officials to evaluate their commitment to "public welfare". Those who failed this test were promptly dismissed.

Unlike Abraham Lincoln, who used communication effectively to rally support during wartime, Wilson was notably distant, even as thousands of Americans lost their lives.

Wilson's approach to handling the aftermath of the war was also fraught with mistakes.

Instead of acknowledging and appreciating the shared sacrifices of Americans, Wilson chose to partake in extravagant victory parades in the streets of Paris. He also snubbed the opposition party by not including any senior Republicans in his peace delegation.

In a final, surprising move, Wilson proposed that his country join the League of Nations, an international entity that he played a part in establishing. Designed to serve as an international platform for conflict resolution and future war prevention, the prospect of joining the League stirred unease among Americans over potential compromises to national sovereignty. Wilson, however, made no efforts to assuage these concerns.

In the end, Wilson's plan backfired spectacularly. The League of Nations proved to be wildly unpopular domestically, and America never joined the global institution that he had played a significant role in creating.

President Roosevelt's questionable decisions amidst his laudable leadership in World War Two

December 7, 1941, represents a dark spot in American history. On this day, in President Roosevelt's words, America suffered an attack that "will live in infamy."

When the previously neutral United States cut off its crucial oil exports to Japan in reaction to Japan's aggressive actions in Asia during World War Two, the Japanese military retorted with a surprise strike on the American fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The assault was devastating: four battleships sank and 4,403 Americans were killed.

However, the attack wasn't as much of a surprise to Roosevelt as it was to the rest of the country. He had been quietly anticipating a conflict with the Axis powers, whom he perceived as a direct threat to liberal democracy. However, the strong anti-war sentiment in America complicated matters for him.

Roosevelt's controversial decision in 1940 to shift the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii under the pretense of dissuading Japanese attacks was puzzling. This relocation brought the American navy much closer to Japan and paradoxically, facilitated an attack. Moreover, Pearl Harbor's strategic vulnerability due to its 360-degree exposure compounded the issue. When Admiral Richardson voiced his concerns over this plan, Roosevelt dismissed him and replaced him with the more agreeable Admiral Kimmel.

In 1940, American code-breakers had successfully deciphered the code Japan employed in its embassy communications. The tone and nature of these messages in late 1940 suggested an impending attack, albeit Pearl Harbor was not specifically mentioned. Despite this, Roosevelt did not adequately inform or prepare the commanders at Pearl Harbor.

Domestically, Roosevelt's decision to forcibly intern thousands of Japanese-American families was an egregious act.

With the onset of war, the fear of a potential Japanese invasion heightened. America, which was home to approximately 100,000 Japanese-American citizens, began viewing them as a national security risk.

On February 19, 1942, Roosevelt ordered the relocation of all Japanese-descendant residents to internment camps across the country. Families of eight were sometimes forced to live in a single room. It took until 1988 for the United States to issue a formal apology for this gross injustice.

Despite these questionable choices, Roosevelt's determination to counter Nazi Germany and Japan deserves commendation as the war had unequivocal moral justifications. Possessing charisma and courage, Roosevelt's leadership was indomitable. He consistently delivered public speeches and held press conferences to keep morale high and remind the nation of the reasons behind their fight.

Roosevelt's command was undeniably impressive, marking him as a uniquely capable leader for the United States during the bloodiest conflict in global history.

President Truman's struggle to deal effectively with the Korean conflict

The simmering tension of the Cold War flared into an outright conflict on June 25, 1950, when the communist-aligned army of North Korea launched an invasion on capitalist South Korea. Viewing the North Korean invasion as an act of hostility, the United Nations (UN) established the UN Command and sent a defense force to protect the South.

President Truman, although reluctant to engage in this war, could have taken steps to prevent it.

In March 1949, Kim Il-Sung, the North Korean leader, sought Joseph Stalin's approval for an invasion during a meeting with the Soviet leader. However, Stalin, cautious of inciting a conflict with the United States, withheld his consent.

When communist forces assumed control in China in October 1949, and Truman chose not to intervene, Stalin took notice. He speculated that the United States might maintain neutrality in Korea as well. This notion was solidified in January 1950 when Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State, announced the establishment of a "defense perimeter" against Communism in East Asia. Notably, South Korea was excluded from this protective ring.

This series of actions inadvertently led Truman and Acheson to embolden Stalin into supporting a North Korean invasion of the South. With the invasion now a reality, Truman felt compelled to safeguard the country and pledged full American support to the UN-led defense initiative.

General Douglas MacArthur was appointed to manage the conflict. Dispatched to Korea, Truman granted the renowned general "all the authority he needs" to repel the North Koreans.

However, this turned out to be a mistake as Truman had reservations about MacArthur. He found the general notoriously reticent during World War Two and perceived him as self-centered.

Truman's initial instincts proved to be correct.

Despite a rocky start, MacArthur gained ground with a series of victories and managed to push the North Korean forces back to the Chinese border. Communist China had so far abstained from direct participation in the Korean War, but this reversal forced a change in their stance. In response, a flood of Chinese troops crossed the Korean border and launched attacks on the UN forces.

MacArthur appealed to Truman for a more assertive response against the Chinese involvement, but the president strictly prohibited him from sending troops beyond the Yalu River. MacArthur agreed on the surface but intensified military offensives south of the said line. This move triggered a counteroffensive led by the Chinese, forcing the UN forces to retreat.

Subsequently, MacArthur sent a letter to Joe Martin, a Massachusetts politician, in which he proposed the mobilization of anti-communist Chinese forces to launch an internal attack on China. Such a maneuver could have easily thrust the United States into an open war with China, potentially sparking World War Three.

This act of defiance was the last straw for Truman. He discharged MacArthur on grounds of insubordination.

While the decision was unpopular at the time, Truman essentially did a great service to his country by dismissing MacArthur. MacArthur's interference in politics and his attempts to escalate the Korean conflict to catastrophic proportions underscore why the military should remain subordinate to the state, and why the president holds the position of Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

Lyndon Johnson's deceptive maneuvers led to an intensified Vietnam War

On the 2nd of August, 1964, news broke in Washington that the USS Maddox had been under fire from North Vietnamese forces in the Tonkin Gulf. At that time, the American military involvement in Vietnam was limited to an advisory role for the South Vietnamese government. However, the winds of change were blowing.

Two days later, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara informed the president of a second attack on the Maddox. However, as contradictory military reports reached Johnson and his advisers, it became increasingly uncertain whether this second attack had actually occurred.

Despite the ambiguity, Johnson addressed senior politicians with unwavering conviction about the second attack during an evening meeting. In response, he commanded airstrikes along the North Vietnamese coastline.

The following day, Johnson appealed to Congress to approve a bill empowering him to undertake any necessary action to "preserve peace" in Southeast Asia. This bill, known as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, was ratified on August 10. The United States was on the path to ramp up its military engagement in Vietnam.

However, the second Gulf of Tonkin attack was likely a fabrication.

Naval officers examining the Maddox's messages even then expressed doubts that a second attack had taken place. Johnson himself was aware that the evidence was tenuous at best. Nonetheless, he and McNamara misled politicians and the public, feigning certainty based on incontrovertible facts. Shortly after Congress passed the Resolution, US intelligence officials informed Johnson that the second attack likely never occurred.

In essence, Johnson manipulated a weak premise to escalate US involvement in Vietnam, transforming it into a full-fledged war. The Vietnam War, in due course, metamorphosed into a dreadful debacle for the United States, consuming the lives of nearly 60,000 Americans.

Despite this, the situation could have spiraled into a far more ominous conflict had Johnson not dismissed the idea of deploying nuclear weapons.

In the lead-up to the Khe Sanh battle in 1968, General William Westmoreland, the commander of US military forces in Vietnam, contemplated transporting nuclear weapons into South Vietnam as a contingency if the battle turned unfavorable. This proposal was dubbed Operation Fracture Jaw.

When Johnson became aware of Fracture Jaw, he was aghast and categorically conveyed to Westmoreland that the employment of nuclear weapons was strictly forbidden.

While Johnson's decision to escalate the war in Vietnam may have been ill-advised, we should appreciate that a more reckless president was not at the helm of the White House.

Presidents have consistently sidestepped the principles of the Founding Fathers and used their power to wage war.

When legendary figures like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to craft the American Constitution, they dreamt of a nation liberated from the tyrannical reign of European monarchs. These despotic rulers were known to exploit their power to incite destructive wars – for the purposes of augmenting their authority, plundering resources and territories, or bolstering their regime's popularity.

To circumvent this scenario, the Founding Fathers expressly mentioned in the Constitution that only Congress, not the president, held the right to declare war. Every declaration of war by Congress would necessitate a majority of votes in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. This procedure was designed with the hope that the monumental decision of waging war would not rest on the whims of a single individual.

Nevertheless, throughout the course of American history, presidents have repeatedly disregarded the Founders' principles and the established system of checks and balances.

James Polk was one such figure. In 1846, by inciting Mexico into launching an attack, Polk manufactured a war to fulfill his ambitions of territorial expansion, emulating the authoritarian European monarchs who were deeply resented by the Founders.

Surprisingly, Abraham Lincoln followed suit. Lincoln abstained from seeking a formal declaration of war from Congress, as he did not want to accord legal recognition to the Confederacy as a separate nation. However, he unwittingly paved the way for a dangerous precedent that many future presidents would exploit.

Then came William McKinley. McKinley, much like Polk, sought a war declaration from Congress. But once at war, he transformed into a European colonial ruler by usurping Spanish territories and establishing an American empire.

The 1941 war declaration by Congress against the Axis powers would mark their last such action. Every war the United States has engaged in since then – Truman's Korea and Johnson's Vietnam included – presidents have found innovative ways to exclude Congress from the decision-making process.

Truman circumvented Congress based on the technicality that the United States was fighting under the flag of the UN, hence bypassing the need for congressional approval. Johnson exploited shaky military evidence to coax Congress into passing the vague Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which essentially authorized the president to undertake any measure deemed necessary to safeguard South Vietnam.

The lesson we should draw from these war-time presidents is that a sitting president can bypass the democratic process and maneuver their way into almost any conflict they desire.

Concluding thoughts

Presidents at the helm during wartime in America present a diverse range, with a fair analysis revealing that even the most respected wartime leaders have had their share of blunders alongside triumphs. Their motivations for waging wars have been equally assorted - some initiated wars to safeguard or reunite the country, while others desired territories or found themselves in situations that could have been resolved through diplomacy. However, if a central theme emerges from this broad sweep of American history, it is that the nation has strayed away from the initial intention of the Founding Fathers - the belief that the power to declare war should rest solely with Congress and the Senate.