unqualified president makes good

It's hard to imagine the shock people must have felt on April 12, 1945 when they learned of the death of Franklin Roosevelt and the succession of Harry S[for nothing] Truman. He had been a Senator since 1934 and Vice President for almost 12 weeks, but his image was that of a hack politician, a failed haberdasher, a man small in mind, body, and accomplishments. He knew little about foreign affairs, nothing about the atomic bomb program, and had met only twice with FDR since being named his running mate.

Lacking much formal education, Truman was a voracious reader, especially of history. He was well aware of his shortcomings, and was determined to overcome them. A nearly day-by-day study of his first four months in the White House chronicles his efforts to become an effective president. A.J. Baime's The Accidental President is a dramatic story of a man whose qualifications were questioned but who, within those four months, acted decisively and humbly and wisely, and quickly won an astounding 87% approval rating in the polls.

Truman read the ponderous briefing books before meeting foreign leaders. He listened to disparate advisors. He was willing to make prompt decisions and not look back. He made some intemperate comments in private, but not in public. He wanted the assurance of many of his old Missouri cronies and appointed many to offices for which they weren't qualified. But he proved and earned his own qualifications for the presidency. Hurrah for Harry!

the wars after the armistice

The First World War was an enormous catastrophe, both for those directly involved in the conflict and for the rest of us who suffered from the failed peace and numerous other wars spawned by it. I've spent a lot of my professional life studying the outbreak and conduct of that war, but only little on its immediate aftermath. I used to think that, maybe except for the fighting and power struggle in Russia, the war basically ended at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918.

I was thus shocked to read a paragraph in Lawrence Freedman's excellent new book, The Future of War, a study of changing views and practices of war. He discusses fictional accounts of future wars as well as academic and governmental studies. By the way, the novelists often did much better than the professionals.

Freedman's surprising observation:

Between 1917 and 1920 Europe experienced some twenty-seven violent transfers of political power. In addition to the economic blockade of the defeated powers, maintained until peace terms were agreed and which led to misery and starvation, and the devastating impact of the Spanish flu on a weakened population, some four million people died in Europe as a direct result of the wars that followed the armistice.

The "war to end war" failed to do that in the short run as well as in the long run.

how many wars are we in today? 19

The White House released its twice-yearly war powers report to Congress this week, listing nineteen conflicts in which U.S. armed forces have been deployed "equipped for combat."  In addition to the 16 conflicts listed in June, the president added operations in Lebanon, Djibouti, and the Philippines, for a total of 19 operations.

The report has fewer specific numbers than in the past, but it still serves as a checklist of activities that put American military personnel at risk. There's no mention of Korea or other nations where we have permanently based forces since those have been established and supported by Congress through regular laws.

Despite its flaw, the war powers act of 1973 has served it chief purpose of preventing American involvement in major, sustained military operations without congressional approval. The wars in Iraq, twice, and Afghanistan were authorized by Congress, and all other major military adventures were greatly limited in size and lasted no more than 3 or 4 months.  It's time, however, for a new authorization to deal with ISIS and affiliates.

using the military for "social experiments"

Another history lesson: we often forget, if we ever learned, that the U.S. armed forces have been a vehicle for social cohesion and national purpose throughout our history. Not always, not everywhere, and not without periods of backsliding. But as this useful summary reminds us, African-Americans were recruited and fought in the Revolutionary War and in each conflict thereafter.

This “social experiment” was, of course, driven largely by necessity; African-Americans were again prohibited from joining the Army or Marine Corps after 1790 — not the Navy, where many served as sailors during the disastrous War of 1812. Even Andrew Jackson raised two battalions of African-American soldiers for the Battle of New Orleans in 1815, the last major confrontation in the conflict with Britain. The openness to build an integrated force in times of need reflected American commanders’ desire to advance a strong nation united in common defense of its Constitution.

Immigrants were also used in great numbers in World War I.

By the time the Treaty of Versailles brought the Great War to a close, half a million immigrants from 46 nations had fought in the U.S. armed forces — a whopping 18% of the country’s fighting force — in pursuit of expedited citizenship, according to the National Park Service. They fought alongside 350,000 African-Americans who served with the American Expeditionary Forces, including the 42,000 assigned to the 92nd and 93rd Divisions infantry units that fought during World War I alongside French troops.

The southern-dominated Army reimposed restrictions on African-Americans during the interwar period, but accepted their inclusion to meet the demands of World War II.

The article does not mention other "social experiments," including the efforts to provide opportunities for less-educated enlistees and draftees in the 1960s.

Even though many in the military resisted providing service opportunities for African-Americans, and women, and gays, the services saluted and obeyed when civilian leadership insisted, and I believe the results have been worthwhile.

the populist, progressive Ku Klux Klan

The original Ku Klux Klan, formed after the War of Rebellion to impose white supremacy in the defeated south, was significantly different from the organization that rose to great power in the 1920s. As historian Linda Gordon explains in her new book, the second Klan was strong in the north and west and broadened its appeal by aligning with other movements. The KKK targeted Catholics and Jews as well as blacks; it supported Prohibition and women's suffrage; it joined evangelical Christians in denouncing the theory of evolution; its rituals were similar to many other fraternal organizations that also mushroomed in the 1920s.In my homestate of Colorado, the Klan helped elect the governor and several congressmen, but was also seen as reformist and against the power elite.

The second Klan had political power. It claimed 26 governors and 62% of the members of Congress. Gordon thinks those numbers are exaggerated, but the group was viewed by politicians as powerful. None of the presidents from Wilson to Hoover ever condemned the organization. Its greatest legislative triumph was passage of the 1924 immigration law that barred Asians and largely restricted entry to people from northern and western Europe.

The Klan rose fast and fell fast. By the end of the 1920s several leaders had been discredited by highly publicized crimes, including rape, murder, and embezzlement. The membership plunged. In the south, of course, Jim Crow laws stayed on the books and were vigorously enforced.