As a person who feels a great love for American History, I have always been drawn to the two seminal events of the last two hundred years, the Civil War and World War II. A lack of understanding with regards to these titanic events leaves one groping in the dark trying to connect the dots as to where we are as a country today. And, I have likewise felt that the two are very much related and connected. The Civil War for all its harsh rhetoric,  shocking casualties, and unspeakable gore, ultimately forged a loose collection of states with vastly different ideologies and turned them into a country that managed to survive and ultimately thrive despite the rigors of total war, unresolved racial questions, and a political system that placed relatively disproportionate power in the hands of the governed (a great thing but truly untried). The experiment in democracy survived its first big test not perfectly, but imperfectly. As the great historian Shelby Foote put it,  “Before the war it was always the United States “are”, after the war it was the United States “is”… It made us an is.”

The Civil War is far too grand a topic to gloss over in one paragraph. That would not be fair and that would not be right. Then again why should we really care about something that ended over 150 years ago? Some of the answers to this question are simple while others are quite complex. Let’s stick to a couple of simple answers for now. For one, it is very difficult to understand where we are now as a country without an understanding of where we were. In many ways, history is as much a study of the past as it is a window to the realities of the present and the outlook for the future. Using World War II as a nexus, it then becomes easier to understand the huge, yet in many ways’ unwelcome responsibility that world war represented to the average American in say 1940 (on the cusp of war). Several generations prior, America had survived a brutal Civil War and had emerged from it stronger and more unified. This is no small statement because civil wars have the potential to plunge a country into a factional, fractured entity that never truly recovers much less grows stronger and more unified. If this had not have happened the way that it did (unification rather than vengeful retribution), world history could have turned out far differently. The fact that The Civil War didn’t ruin us meant that Europe and the Far East had an “ace in the hole” when it was needed most. It could have ruined us as a country quite easily. Abraham’s Lincoln’s benign vision in large part won the day despite many calls for a far different resolution.

Moreover, America had seen firsthand the horrors of World War I with its horrific trench warfare and alarmingly high battlefield casualty rates over often insignificant ground and perplexing European political expediencies. Those realities were fresh in the minds of an American generation that was in some ways reminiscent of our Millennials of today. The economic good times of the 1920’s proved ephemeral and the stock market crash of 1929 helped usher in what became known as The Great Depression (1929-1939). Engagement in a foreign conflict was certainly not Plan A in the minds of most Americans. December 7th, 1941 and the bombing of Pearl Harbor changed everything, and the rest is shall we say history. America rose to the challenge, and now, incredibly, Japan and Germany are two of our most loyal allies. History often provides incongruent future realities. Imagine telling the “Americans” of the American Revolution that we would be fighting side by side with England someday in the future.  

Recently, I viewed Ken Burn’s 2007 creation The War and I must say it really got me thinking about how differently Americans thought about virtually everything. This incredible story of WWII as see through the eyes of four typical American cities should be required viewing for all high school students. The predominantly black and white footage and first-person contemporary interviews portrayed (for the most part) a united nation that endured and persevered through what amounted to an epic, bloody struggle that at times seemed to have no end in sight. The older men and women who remembered the time talked of sacrifice, grief, responsibility, abject fear, hatred, hopelessness, relief, and a whole host of emotions tied to the rigors of total war and human beings caught up in a drama that was the most significant event of their lives. Coming through the crucible of war creates a person who appreciates the often terrible event for the life changing experience that it was, and they come to realize that it has changed them in ways that would be unimaginable to a person uninitiated in the struggle that is (total) war. It is a baptism of sorts that many undertake and only some complete due to the ultimate sacrifice that so many endure for their respective countries. Those black and white photos and footage spoke to me in a way that depicted America at her best. Aligned against those who represented humanity at its very worst despite the undeniable bravery of many caught up in something that did not tolerate dissent…

One of the truly interesting aspects of both the American Civil War and The Second World War has to do with the lingering, though impermanent, effects of a veneration for men of war after the completion of the conflict. After the Civil War, a veteran of this war served as President from 1869 though 1901. Theodore Roosevelt (a Spanish American War veteran) become President when Civil War veteran William McKinley was assassinated late in his first term. Theodore Roosevelt served two terms and was then followed by William Howard Taft who was not a veteran but did serve as Secretary of War (1904-1908). Woodrow Wilson became the first President lacking any military experience since 1869 (Andrew Johnson succeeded Abraham Lincoln after his assassination in April of 1865).

Interestingly Wilson was a true progressive academic. Wilson led America during the First World War (1914-1918); initially Wilson was quite reluctant to build up the military in anticipation of war. Wilson was not a man of war for better or worse. The sinking of the Lusitania caused an abrupt reversal of this reluctance. Dead Americans have a way of swaying pacifist / noninterventionist intentions in the blink of an eye.

Interestingly, World War I and the end of Wilson’s presidency did not see the country turn to a military leader as it did after the Civil War and again after the death of Franklin Roosevelt late in the conflict. Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, F. Roosevelt were all nonmilitary men.  Interestingly Harry Truman (Roosevelt’s Vice President) was a World War I combat veteran and was largely responsible to make a decision that was perhaps the most difficult decision of the entire war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been debated to the present time, but I can tell you that from the perspective of the people who lived the war, as depicted in Ken Burn’s inspired documentary, it was no decision at all. Japan was losing the war badly and was given every opportunity to surrender. The people of that time knew that an invasion of Japan would mean the loss of hundreds of thousands of American lives. For Harry Truman, a man of war, the decision, though difficult was clear. Truman went on to serve two terms after taking over for Roosevelt in 1945. Truman was followed by General Dwight Eisenhower who much like U.S. Grant, became President immediately after being the preeminent general for the victorious side at the conclusion of a great conflict. Eisenhower was followed by Kennedy, Johnson (Kennedy’s assassination), Nixon, Ford (because of Nixon’s resignation), Carter, Reagan, and Bush Sr. All these men (and yes Johnson and Ford could have asterisks by their names) were military men who participated in the great conflict and were changed by it. Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, and Bush Sr.  perhaps profoundly so as they were all combat veterans. As Kennedy so beautifully stated…

“A nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces but also by the men it honors, the men it remembers.”

The people of the post-Civil War era chose to honor people and in fact bestow the highest office in the land on those who had endured its hardships for many years after the conflict. Likewise, for many years after the conclusion of World War II our citizens acted in a similar fashion.  With war comes a wisdom that is earned in the most horrific of circumstances… The population, for a time, understands that men of war are the best people to understand the urgency of never revisiting the horrors of war. They also seem to understand that sometimes war is necessary. It is that strange and counterintuitive dichotomy that seems to pervade the American psyche, at least for a time.

After the last Civil War veteran President in 1901 (McKinley assassination), and the last veteran commander in chief in 1913, America experienced a period of civilian leadership from 1913 through 1945. In the case of World War II, the nonmilitary service started with Bill Clinton in 1993 and has continued through Donald Trump. Clinton was in fact the first President who actively rejected military service in Vietnam through a rather murky set of circumstances. The fact that America would choose to elect someone to lead the country who had in fact failed to serve that country when called upon presents a strange contrast when presented with the heroics of his immediate predecessor George W. Bush who was shot down in combat and received the distinguished Flying Cross. I would suggest that this strange transition represents a significant change in America’s collective persona through natural attrition (i.e. death), fading memory of war, or the emergence of a younger generation of voters who have no tie to it whatsoever.

While assuredly it is true that Vietnam was a different kind of war and that Bush’s World War II heroism was possibly not the predominant reason he was elected to the highest office in the land. It (Clinton’s election) does, however, speak of a new disregard for the lessons of war with its inherent triumph, tragedy and most importantly, wisdom. Our definition of the best of the best undergoes a natural and inevitable change. It would seem to me that the bar was lowered with the election of Clinton and that it is inevitable that it will be raised again. The growing pains that we are experiencing now are truly unlike anything that Woodrow Wilson and his subsequent commanders in chief struggled through. History repeats though it is also true that History does not exactly duplicate.

Throughout our history, men of war have been called upon to lead our country. And, it is certainly not true that they do so perfectly and that those without combat service do so in some especially unique, flawed fashion. It does seem clear that the people that we choose as our commanders in chief says a lot more about the electors than the elected. Something tells me that there will be a day in our future when conflict on a grand scale will visit us again and I feel pretty certain that someone who is a man (or woman) of war will be called upon again and that it is highly likely that this may in fact mark the beginning of the kind of trend we have seen in our not so distant past.