19th and 20th C military history book – “Arguing About Alliances” (Cornell University Press, 2019) – Paul Poast interview

Paul Poast is a professor and writer in the field of International Relations. We spoke about his latest book on how military pacts are negotiated.

1:00 – Paul talks about his research on military pacts.

3:53 – Paul talks about the 1939 negotiations between the French, British and Soviet Union.

7:13 – The book covers the early 1800s to WWII.

9:09 – Paul talks about elemenst of negotiation.

12:34 – Paul talks about transparency in negotiations.

15:27 – Paul talks about the 1901 pact negotiations between Britain and Germany.

20:39 – Paul talks about worries about changes of government during negotiations.

24:12 – Paul talks about the limited duration of military pacts.

28:06 – Paul talks about the differences between pacts negotiated during peace and during war.

53:17 – Paul talks about how the 1916 Wheat Executive agreement of WWI is the template for a lot of modern treaties.

56:17 – Paul talks about how much of western international relations studies are focused on Russia.

59:23 – Paul can be found on twitter @ProfPaulPoast. He’s also at PaulPoast.com.

Links of interest

https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501740244/arguing-about-alliances/

https://twitter.com/ProfPaulPoast?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

http://www.paulpoast.com/

For more “Military History Inside Out” please follow me at www.warscholar.org, on Facebook at warscholar, on twitter at Warscholar, on youtube at warscholar1945 and on Instagram @crisalvarezswarscholar

The podcast “Military History Inside Out” can be found on all major podcast feeds.

Guests: Paul Poast

Host: Cris Alvarez

Tags: military, history, military history, conflict, war, interview, non-fiction book, military pacts, Britain, france, soviet union, NATO, germany, austria-hungary, europe, east asia, japan, cornell university, international relations, WWI, Jean Monet

US Civil War era history book – “Abraham Lincoln Statesmanship and the Limits of Liberal Democracy” (Southern Illinois University Press, 2019) – Jon D. Schaff – WarScholar written interview 4

http://siupress.siu.edu/books/978-0-8093-3737-8

When people hear the name Lincoln, they usually think immediately of the U.S. Civil War and the incredible violence and hate that marked that national conflict. However, Lincoln was in charge of more than just the Union military. He also had to worry about the many needs of the nation ranging from agricultural production, infrastructure management, the economy, education, and so on. These things weren’t put on hold simply because of the war.

As such, Lincoln still had to deal with politicians and voters. While victory and defeat on the battlefield dominated headlines, there was much to do to keep the country steady. His decisions and negotiations with Congress helped shaped the country after the war nearly as much as the war did.

Jon Schaff has written about Lincoln’s approach to running the government and uses the development of major pieces of legislation as a way to show the practical applications of Lincoln’s leadership philosophy. I spoke with him about his book Abraham Lincoln’s Statesmanship and the Limits of Liberal Democracy and the struggle of one man to raise up his nation for the betterment of all.

How did you become interested in studying and writing on the subject of your book?

When I was a graduate student I intended to write a dissertation about a completely different subject. My advisor then pointed out to me the dearth of research on Lincoln as a non-war president. We focus so much on Lincoln as commander-in-chief that we seldom consider the other aspects of the presidency. Given that the Civil War was also an era of great public policy change, this seemed odd. So I wrote a dissertation on it. My interest in Lincoln has greatly expanded since then, but that’s where it started. From the moment I started researching Lincoln I was hooked.

What aspect of this subject does your book focus on?

The book is split into two parts. The first part looks at Lincoln’s philosophy of government, namely looking at the virtues of prudence and moderation that are at the heart of statesmanship, Lincoln’s defense of natural rights, and finally Lincoln’s views on the powers of government and economics. The second half of the book look’s at Lincoln’s presidential leadership in marshaling through major pieces of legislation during the Civil War. These include the Homestead Act, Land-Grant College Act, Pacific Railroad Act, National Bank Act, and Legal Tender Act.

What are the major themes of this book?

The major themes of the book are indicated in the book’s title, namely statesmanship and limits. I am interested in Lincoln as the statesman par excellence. Today we have a noticeable shortage of statesmanship, so I think it is time we look to a model of statesmanship to better appreciate what qualities we should be looking for in leaders. One of the main components of statesmanship is the notion of limits. We often confuse the voice of the people with the voice of God, but a statesman, like a good parent or a good friend, will tell us that we must limit our desires. Not everything we long for is good for us. So I look at prudence and moderation as the main virtues of the statesman. Prudence because it tells us that even when attempting good things we must be conscious of using proper means. Moderation because the statesman must balance various competing goods. I also show how Lincoln favored strong but limited government. In addition, in his theory of “free labor” Lincoln advocated an economics that puts freedom above unlimited economic gain. Finally, Lincoln’s theory of the presidency, contrary to the modern presidency, is one that sees limits to the president’s power and when dealing with non-military policy is largely deferential to Congress.

In regards to Lincoln’s views on limits of the government, did Lincoln view the Confederate states as still part of the Union and to whom he would continue to apply limited government as best as possible, or did he believe the Confederacy should not be afforded his preferred applications of moderation and statesmanship until after the war was over?

These are not mutually exclusive. Yes, the Confederate states were part of the Union, but obviously in fomenting rebellion they lost some of their legal rights. But still Lincoln was, I’d argue, prudent and moderate in respect to the South. Notice how in the run-up to war Lincoln favored a Constitutional Amendment forgoing any federal power over slavery where it existed, excepting a compensated emancipation. Lincoln countermanded orders from military generals that had proclaimed slaves forever free in certain areas. Lincoln argued that if anyone would do such a thing as a war measure, it must be the commander-in-chief. Lincoln had an overall concern that when the war was over that the Union had to be able to come together. This is the whole ethos of the Second Inaugural and Lincoln’s approach to reconstruction, which was far more modest than envisioned by Radical Republicans in Congress, as evidenced by his veto of the Wade-Davis reconstruction bill.

What resource materials did you use for your research?

Well, lots of course! The two most important sources for the book were Lincoln’s Collected Works as edited by Roy Basler and the Congressional Digest (today the Congressional Record). The Collected Works are now online, but early in my research on Lincoln I was generously gifted this eight-volume set by a friend. It has proved indispensable in many ways. I still prefer reading the books rather than looking online. The Congressional Digest was crucial to laying out the legislative history of the major pieces of non-war legislation of the Civil War era. Again, much of this is online today. I spent countless hours looking at microfilm. It was good for my soul. Bad for my eyes.

What part of the research process was most enjoyable for you?

Reading Lincoln, naturally. Of course much of what is in Lincoln’s Collected Works is mundane and of modest importance. But there are regular nuggets of pure brilliance. There is a reason why Lincoln is so thoroughly researched. He is exceedingly deft in the use of the English language and his mind is so lucid that there is incredible depth to his major works. Also, reading Lincoln’s letters gives you some idea of how funny he was. He really could tell a joke.

What did you discover in your research that most surprised you?

I don’t know if I’d call it a surprise, but I think one of the book’s central conclusions is precisely opposite to conventional wisdom Lincoln was quite deferential to Congress in all matters not concerned with the war. Lincoln is so often held up as a model of aggressive presidential leadership that many will be surprised to find that Lincoln provides little precedent for our modern presidency-centered politics.

I think the most original portion of the book is where I compare Lincoln’s views on economics to the 20th Century economic theory of Distributism, an economic theory that owes much to Catholic social teaching of the time. Lincoln certainly condemned slavery, but he also did not consider wage-labor to be truly free labor. Lincoln’s economic vision was one of small farmers, small shops, local industrialists. A person should both partake of capital and labor, i.e., have ownership in business and work at the same time. Lincoln would be disappointed at how many Americans today work for “the man” instead of working for themselves.

Did Congress focus on non-war issues as much as Lincoln or perhaps more so?  How did that affect his approach to getting legislation passed?

Yes, very much so. This goes along with policy theory that the kinds of policies that dominated Congress in this era tended to be of a nature that would lend themselves to congressional leadership. I think Lincoln deferred to the practice of his age, which was deference to Congress in policy matters. One of the book’s ultimate points is that there is much virtue in this much more limited conception of presidential power.

Foreign affairs and foreign actors impacted Lincoln’s concerns about the war.  Which countries might throw their support behind the Confederacy for example.  Did these same factors impact non-war issues that he was facing?

The classic example is that Great Britain thought about intervening on the part of the South due to the desire for cheap cotton. I don’t see any impact with non-war matters, however.

Did you get a strong idea of how much of his legislation was designed to shape the South after the war, again in regards to non-war issues? 

I don’t think any legislation, outside of overt reconstruction legislation, was aimed at the South. A minor caveat to that was that Southerners where not that supportive of Homestead legislation as it gave incentive to populate the West with free labor agriculture, which tended to mitigate against Southern pro-slavery interests.

Was there anything you discovered that moved you?

Regarding Lincoln and free labor, there is a line in his speech in Wisconsin in 1859 on agriculture that really affected me. He envisions a society of free laborers who are self-sufficient. He says, “No community whose every member possesses this art, can ever be the victim of oppression in any of its forms. Such community will be alike independent of crowned-kings, money-kings, and land-kings.” I find that notion inspiring.

What was the most difficult issue to research?

I don’t know that I’d call any issue difficult. Certainly the history of legislation in the 37th Congress (the first Congress of the Civil War) was the most time consuming. I wanted to know not just the congressional debate, which itself was time consuming to get through, but the history of key figures in Congress. To get a full picture of what was happening in that Congress wasn’t what I would call difficult, but it was tedious at times.

What might Lincoln’s legislative priorities have been had there not been a war?

This is a great question. I think you would have seen Lincoln attempting to enact a Whig-style economic agenda, namely a system of tariffs, internal improvements, and matters such as Homestead and railroad legislation designed to promote economic diversity. I also think absent war Lincoln may have paid more attention to Native issues and probably would have dealt more gently with them than ultimately occurred. Lincoln was not enamored of “Manifest Destiny” (see his opposition to the Mexican War) and despite his encouragement of Western settlement was less ideological about Western expansion than most. And, yes, Lincoln would have pursued, I think, some kind of gradual compensated emancipation solution to slavery.

What do you hope the book will do for readers?

I hope the book inspires people to think harder about statesmanship and what it takes to have a decent democracy. I write in the introduction that part of the inspiration for the book is the notion that we take democracy for granted. We have had a pretty good run in America, and I think we have lost the sense that democracy needs certain virtues that require cultivation. That’s the job of the statesman. I do think that there is a general consensus that things are not well with our democracy, and I hope this book can help us diagnose those problems and give some idea of solutions. This is done by taking us out of our time and maybe seeing democracy anew in the statesmanship of Abraham Lincoln.

Did you have any difficulties in finishing the book and publishing it and if so, how did you overcome those?

My biggest difficulty in finishing the book was time. I worked on this book for many years. I work at a teaching heavy institution, which I like, but it makes finding time to write very difficult. So it was slow going. Thank goodness for sabbaticals! I didn’t have a lot of problem getting the book published. A friend suggested I approach Southern Illinois University Press. While they were a little hesitant at first, but they eventually saw the value in the project. The review and editing process was a little slow, but the people at SIU were a joy to work with and I know that they made my book better with their suggestions.

What is your next research or writing project?

I have two projects cooking. I actually have another book coming out in December, co-authored with a friend who teaches in the Communication department at Duquesne University. It is called Age of Anxiety: Meaning, Identity, and Politics in 21st Century Film and Literature. If you want to find out about that book it is up on Amazon (although not for sale yet). I am also beginning a project in which I will present Lincoln as a synthesis of the founding clash between Jefferson and Hamilton. I think Lincoln combines Jefferson’s dedication to natural rights and concern with self-sufficiency as a hallmark of a free people with Hamilton’s belief in an economically diverse, commercial nation. In addition, Lincoln shares Hamilton’s distrust of Jefferson’s populism while avoiding the anti-democratic elitism that sometimes infects Hamilton’s thought. Through this synthesis Lincoln builds a political teaching better than either founder’s thought. Or so I think right now!

Do you have any online accounts where people can find more of your work? 

I have a website: jonschaff.com that has a bunch of my writing on it. I can also be followed on Twitter @JonDSchaff.

Author Biography

Jon D. Schaff

Professor of Political Science

Northern State University

Author of Abraham Lincoln’s Statesmanship and the Limits of Liberal Democracy

Southern Illinois University Press, 2019.

https://www.jonschaff.com

Amazon war history book – “Slavery and Utopia” (University of Texas Press, 2018) – Fernando Santos-Granero – WarScholar written interview 3

https://utpress.utexas.edu/books/santos-granero-slavery-and-utopia

For many readers, the Amazon has been a place that brings up images of wild beauty, teeming wildlife, and violent death. It is a place considered pristine and uncivilized. Today the Amazon is seen as a vital environmental asset, the destruction of which is considered a harbinger of a fast approaching environmental disaster brought on by the unchecked growth of civilization.

But the Amazon’s struggle for survival is not a new one. Many indigenous peoples live in the Amazon and they have all had to deal with the encroachment of civilization. But these peoples didn’t simply succumb to the crush of development and exploitation. Some of them fought back and fought back successfully.

Fernando Santos-Granero has written about one such Amazonian leader and I spoke with him about his book Slavery and Utopia and the struggles of one man and his followers to save his people’s place in the Amazon.

How did you become interested in studying and writing on the subject of your book?

I became interested in the figure of Ashaninka Chief José Carlos Amaringo Chico by sheer chance. In 2008, Łukasz Krokoszyński, a young colleague, told me about a book published by Mieczysław B. Lepecki, a Polish Army officer, recounting his experiences during a 1928 reconnaissance trip to the Upper Ucayali River in Peruvian Amazonia.

What led Łukasz to bring this particular book to my attention was Lepecki’s mention of an encounter with an Ashaninka chief who claimed to be “son of the Sun.” His followers, according to Lepecki, called him Tasorentsi, the Ashaninka term for a category of gods, good spirits and divine emissaries that may be translated as “all-powerful blower world transformer.” Lepecki described Tasorentsi as a great chief and paramount leader of a violent uprising that in 1915 had swept the Upper Ucayali and Lower Urubamba, killing many rubber extractors and forcing the survivors to abandon the region.

Knowing of my interest in the struggles of the indigenous peoples of the Selva Central region against white people’s encroachment, Łukasz assumed that Lepecki’s reference would be of interest to me. I responded that I had never heard of an indigenous uprising on the Upper Ucayali at that date. And added that Lepecki was probably merging accounts of the well-recorded 1912-14 Ashaninka revolt in the neighboring Pichis, Perené and Pangoa river basins with older narratives about Juan Santos Atahualpa, head of an eighteenth-century millenarian and anticolonial uprising against the Spanish, who also styled himself “son of the Sun.” However, since I was not prepared to dismiss the story entirely, I embarked on a search for independent evidence confirming Lepecki’s information. An examination of the national and regional newspapers of the time confirmed not only that the uprising had taken place but also that Chief Tasorentsi had played a key role in its planning and execution.

What aspect of this subject does your book focus on?

At the beginning, I intended to focus my study on the 1915 Upper Ucayali uprising. The revolt coincided with the collapse of the rubber boom –the rapid economic prosperity derived from the extraction of natural rubber throughout Amazonia– and I was interested to determine whether it had been an isolated incident or an expression of a much wider indigenous discontent. However, as the information started piling up, and I realized that Chief Tasorentsi had played a crucial role in most of the social and political events that affected Ashaninka people during the first half of the twentieth century, I gradually changed the focus of my study to reconstructing the life and political trajectory of this extraordinary man.

What are the major themes of this book?

The reconstruction of Chief Tasorentsi’s political trajectory serves as a backdrop to examine three broader topics. Firstly, the tensions and conflicts between the indigenous peoples of the Selva Central region and the local representatives of the national society –rubber extractors, river traders, merchant houses, shippers and local authorities– during a chaotic and violent period Peruvian Amazon history. In second place, the strategies developed by indigenous leaders to liberate their peoples from white-mestizo oppressors, many of whom were involved in the enslavement and traffic of indigenous people; strategies that oscillated between armed confrontation and millenarian action going through calls for retreat and isolationism. Finally, the debates that the conflicts between white and indigenous peoples generated at the regional and national level opposing those who defended indigenous rights to their lands and lifeways to those who proposed their cultural assimilation and/or extermination.

What resource materials did you use for your research?

The book combines a vast array of materials: archival documents from national and regional repositories with oral histories recorded from knowledgeable indigenous elders; journalistic articles and editorials with field materials collected by Ashaninka specialists in the 1960s, 70s and 80s; Adventist and Catholic missionary literature with ethnographic works; articles produced by scientists and explorers with travelogues published by globetrotters and adventurers; dictionaries of indigenous languages with old maps, sky charts and atlases; and musical recordings and scores with photographs, early films and other visual materials. It is thus a work of historical anthropology; a hybrid book combining the conventions of anthropology and history.

What part of the research process was most enjoyable for you?

I especially enjoyed the archival work. In comparison to Andean indigenous peoples, native Amazonian peoples have received very little attention from colonial or post-colonial authorities. As a result, there are not many archival documents dealing with their history. When I began my research, I did not expect to find much in the way of written documents. I was thus quite surprised when I began to find documents that dealt directly with Chief Tasorentsi and his actions throughout the years. Even more enjoyable, however, was the process of slowly putting together the puzzle of Chief Tasorentsi’s life based on such disparate kinds of information.

What did you discover in your research that most surprised you?

My greatest discovery was the resourcefulness and versatility of indigenous leaders such as Chief Tasorentsi, who had the capacity to change and constantly re-invent himself in response to the challenges posed by changing social and political conditions, but also to deep philosophical-moral doubts and reflection. The lives of such leaders were not black or white, but rather made up of multiple shades of gray. This was clearly the case of Chief Tasorentsi, who, from being a debt-peon and quasi-slave in his youth, went on to being a slave raider and trader; inspirer of an Ashaninka movement against white-mestizo rubber extractors and slave traffickers; paramount chief of a multiethnic, anticolonial, and anti-slavery uprising; enthusiastic preacher of an indigenized version of Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine; and charismatic people-gatherer whose world-transforming message and personal influence extended well beyond Peru’s frontiers.

Was there anything you discovered that moved you?

What moved me the most was the discovery of a song composed by Chief Tasorentsi as a means of transmitting his millenarian message. Colleague Jeremy Narby recorded the song in the 1980s from an Ashaninka friend who had learned it from Tasorentsi as a boy, and generously provided me with a copy. When I first heard the song, I was enthralled. I felt as if Chief Tasorentsi was trying to communicate with me across time. Narby had transcribed the lyrics but had not translate it. With the help of ethnomusicologists, linguists and anthropologists I finally managed to translate the song. Its message –that the creator god is coming to this earth to take his children to the waters of youth, where they will enjoy immortal life– expressed in evocative and melodious words the core of Ashaninka traditional religious beliefs.

What was the most difficult issue to research?

The most difficult part of my research was to find information on Chief Tasorentsi’s youth and old age. In those two periods, Chief Tasorentsi led a life away from the public spotlight. For this reason, there are few written documents for those years. It was thanks to interviews with Ashaninka elders related to Chief Tasorentsi and, more especially, with his youngest son that I was able to fill in those gaps. Oral histories thus became a crucial complement to archival materials.

What do you hope the book will do for readers?

With regard to non-indigenous readers, I hope that the book will allow them to get a glimpse of the richness of native Amazonian cultural practices and history, but also to realize the enormous odds that indigenous peoples have had to overcome in order to survive. It is my hope that greater knowledge of indigenous peoples’ past struggles will sensitize readers to support their present-day fight for their rights to life, land, and political autonomy. With regard to Ashaninka readers, I hope this book will recover a part of their history that has been largely forgotten; a history of courage against mighty odds in which not only leaders, but common men and women played a crucial part.

Did you have any difficulties in finishing the book and publishing it and if so, how did you overcome those?

No. Before I started to write the book, I signed a book contract with the University of Texas Press.

Do you have any online accounts where people can find more of your work? 

Readers can find more about my work at: https://stri.si.edu/scientist/fernando-santos-granero

Author Biography

Fernando Santos-Granero

Social Anthropologist

Smithsonian Institute

Author of Slavery and Utopia: The Wars and Dreams of an Amazonian World Transformer, University of Texas Press, 2018.

https://stri.si.edu/scientist/fernando-santos-granero