December 1st, 2025 | John Miller

The True Flag And The American Era

A book review.

The True Flag: Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain and the birth of American Empire is a book by Stephen Kinzer detailing the rise of the modern USA.

The book looks at two of the era’s most prominent figures, both for and against the expansion of American power. On the pro-side of the equation was larger-than-life U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, and on the against side was illustrious author Mark Twain. Together, they form the personification of the ideologies of the time and allow the reader to get a taste of attitudes and ambitions that were breaking out across the Western world around the year 1900. 

One famous speech is March of the Flag by Albert Beveridge. He was a loud and proud proponent of imperialism, and this speech highlights the zeitgeist of the time. Americans… and other Western powers/Empires at that time had far more confidence and ambition than the same people inhabiting the West today. They saw Western Civilisation as obviously and self-evidently superior to everything else and assumed that expansion and imperialism were natural and good. 

The critics were painted as small-minded, cowardly and weak. Their arguments were viewed as a smokescreen for trepidation and sloth. Although these arguments have far more validity to us in hindsight, they had a distinct air of defeatism and shame that was entirely off-putting to the youthful ambitions of the era. 

One of the biggest arguments that has persisted over time, is the nature of consent of the ruled. 

The Opposition tells us that we ought not to govern a people without their consent. I answer: The rule of liberty that all just government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, applies only to those who are capable of self-government. We govern the Indians without their consent, we govern our territories without their consent, we govern our children without their consent. How do they know what our government would be without their consent? Would not the people of the Philippines prefer the just, humane, civilising government of this Republic to the savage, bloody rule of pillage and extortion from which we have rescued them? - March of the Flag speech - 1898

Why should a foreign government move in and rule over a people without asking them first if that is what they desire? This question harkens back centuries…even to the time of settlements in North America regarding aboriginal land claims. 

By 1900, however, these pro/con arguments had more merit. The Stone-Age “civilisations” had long been tamed by the expansion of the Western world and the new imperialism was focused on what we might today simply view as third-world shitholes. These shitholes didn’t consist of just spear-throwing people anymore, but were corruptly governed by tyrants and had some semblance of development. In the case of the U.S.A at this time, the countries in question were places like Cuba and the Philippines. As Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed:

“It is our duty towards the people living in barbarism to see that they are freed from their chains and we can only do it by destroying barbarism itself.” - page 205

Mark Twain had been travelling around the world and his experiences turned him into an ardent anti-Imperialist. He wasn’t swayed by calls of “liberty” and “freedom” and “progress”. He became caustically cynical and viewed all these high-minded platitudes as cover for exploitation, greed and unfettered power.

The True Flag walks the reader through the development of the early American Empire. The two camps opposing each other tended to have a dialectic in which the optimism of empire overwhelms the caution of non-intervention and then, over time, after the consequences begin to be felt and the higher prices paid, people learn the hard way that imperialism isn’t worth the cost. 

Or is it?

Spain ruled the Philippines for 333 years. That’s a pretty good run. Spain owning the Philippines probably wouldn’t have lasted for centuries if there wasn’t a benefit to Spain and reciprocally The Philippines itself. The problem with binary approaches to questions like imperialism/empire is that they are too simple an assessment for a nuanced project like building a nation. 

It’s easy for guys like Mark Twain to sit back and take the theoretical high road of non-interventionism and claim moral authority for doing so… and then to wash his hands of any of the consequences that arise from the perpetuation of barbarity. He’s not wrong to point out the faults and risks of imperialism, but the essence of guys like Twain is found in today’s modern left. Everything Western is bad, and if any non-Western country is a failure, it’s either due to Western intervention or the history of intervention…or due to Western indifference. The point is to always make it our fault. 

The flip side is the Roosevelt attitude of spreading democracy and freedom for the betterment of mankind everywhere. Only the most cynical and psychopathic were unwilling to dress up their avarice with platitudes to higher principles like these. History seems to show that it’s a fine line between overbearing imperialism that leads to revolution, guerrilla warfare and genocide and too-soft, ineffective imperialism that leads to chaos, bankruptcy and tyranny.

The Philippines, being ruled for 333 years under Spain and then for another 30-odd years under the United States, doesn’t seem like the worst outcome in the world. Compare it with Afghanistan during the 40 years of British occupation…or the Soviet Union occupation for 10 years…or the U.S. occupation for 20 years. What’s the factor? Why does empire work relatively successfully when looking at a country like India, but horrifically when looking at Congo?

The answer seems to be: reasons.

Stephen Kinzer does not delve into these reasons too deeply, as this is more of a historical look at events during the time and not an editorial about the philosophy of empire. His age and New York Times background lead one to believe that he’s likely inclined to be a little more Mark Twain than Theodore Roosevelt, but his journalism standards do give a relatively fair and balanced conclusion that doesn’t propagandize a shitlib worldview. 

If you’re interested in the beginnings of the American Empire (before the rise of Woke Gay Race Communism), this is a good page-turner to illustrate how we got here and where it all originated.

Check your local library or order it online here.