Détente & Entente

Détente (pronounced dey-tahnt or dey-tahnt (French))

(1) A period of lessening tension between two national powers, or a policy, usually by means of negotiation or agreement, designed to lessen that tension.  A détente is not the resolution of disagreement between the powers but a device to reduce the tensions these disagreements induce.

(2) A term used by historians to describe US foreign policy between the first Nixon administration (1969) and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1979).  Détente’s companion word in Russian was разрядка (razryadka) (reduction of tension) 

1912: From the French détente (literally “a loosening or relaxation”), from the Old French destente, a derivative of destendre (to relax; to release), the construct being des- (from the Middle French, from the Old French des-, from the Latin dis-, from the Proto-Italic dwis-, from the primitive Indo-European dwís and cognate with the Ancient Greek δίς (dís) and the Sanskrit द्विस् (dvis), the prefix used variously to convey (1) asunder, apart, in two, part, separate, (2) reversal, removal or (3) utterly, exceedingly.) + tendre (to stretch). A doublet of intent.

The French use was influenced by the Vulgar Latin detendita, the feminine past participle of detendere (loosen, release) and as a political term in the sense of "an easing of hostility or tensions between countries", it became more popular in diplomatic discourse after Russia joined the Anglo-French entente cordiale.  In French, the word dates from the 1680s; the earlier detent was a mechanism that temporarily keeps one part in a certain position relative to that of another, which can be released by applying force to one of the parts.  It was used most in engineering to describe a locking mechanism, often spring-loaded to check the movement of a wheel in one direction, the most obvious example of which is a pulley.  In English it was treated as a French word until it was used to describe a theme in US foreign policy 1969-1979; in English, the spelling detente is often used.  The verb detented (The action of locking or unlocking movement by way of a detent mechanism) is the simple past & past participle of detent (that which locks or unlocks a movement; a catch (stopping mechanism), pawl, or dog; especially, in clockwork, the catch which locks and unlocks the wheelwork in striking).  Detent was from the French détente, from the Latin tendō (to stretch). Détente is a noun; the noun plural is détentes.

Entente (pronounced ahn-tahnt or ahn-tahnt (French))

(1) An arrangement or understanding between two or more nations agreeing to pursue shared interests with regard to affairs of international concern but without concluding a formal binding alliance.

(2) The parties to an entente cordiale collectively.

1844: From the French entente (understanding) from the Old French verb entente (intention) a noun use of the feminine of entent, past participle of entendre (to intend).  Although not all agree, there may have been some influence from the Latin intenta, perhaps perhaps through the substantivized Vulgar Latin past participle intendita, as a variant of intenta.  In English, “the entente” has long been used as verbal shorthand for the Anglo-French entente cordiale (1904), the best known of the many ententes, the first apparently document in 1844.  Entente is a noun; the noun plural is ententes.

Was once an alliance ("holy" or "unholy", depending on how one sees such things): Paris Hilton (left) and Lindsay Lohan (right).

There being (as Lord Palmerston (1784-1865; variously UK prime-minister or foreign secretary on several occasions 1830-1865) helpfully once explained): "no permanent allies, only permanent interests", in international relations, for millennia, relationships between states have, as circumstances demanded, shifted between hostility, peaceful co-existence, détente and entente.  In February 2026, celebrity gossip sites reported what was described as the "official” end of the feud between Paris Hilton (b 1980) and Lindsay Lohan (b 1986).  First publicized in 2006 and for more than a decade sustained, off and on, in public and “attributed” comments, things in the 2020s appeared to settle into a state of “peaceful-coexistence” that was thought something short of an actual détente but it seems the shared experience of motherhood had quieted the old enmities.  Indeed, when Ms Hilton was asked if since they’d become mothers she’d “reconnected” with Ms Lohan, she replied “Yes, we are planning to get the kids together.  I am so happy for her.  She is glowing.  We love being moms.”  The celebrity gossip sites undertake analysis as deep and wide as any Kremlinologist or Vaticanologist and the consensus which emerged was an entente had been established.

Détente

Until the late 1960s, the word détente was rare except in diplomatic circles or the work of historians.  In the language of diplomacy, it came into use around 1912 when there were (obviously not successful) attempts by Germany and France to reduce tensions which may have given it a bad name although it appears often in the archival records of the League of Nations (1920-1946), something which may further have added tarnish.  The revival came when Dr Henry Kissinger (b 1923; US national security advisor 1969-1973 & secretary of state 1973-1977) was appointed national security advisor by Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974), bringing with him a long study of diplomacy and a feeling for the desirability of a “balance of power” between the USSR and US, under which a stable “peaceful co-existence” could be maintained.  The core element of détente was arms-limitation, Kissinger’s idea being there was no surer path to a reduction in tensions than reducing the possibility of conflict escalating to nuclear confrontation.  Kissinger belong to the "power realist" school of thought in political scientist, opposed to the "idealists" who believed in defeating rather than co-existing with opposing ideologies.  As "neo-cons" (neo-conservatives), the idealists would re-emerge in Washington DC in the twenty-first century and the world is still dealing with the implications of their various flings. 

Détente: Dr Henry Kissinger & Dolly Parton, 1985.

There were regular summit meetings too and even Nixon’s visit to China in 1972 worked as a part of détente with the USSR but détente did not fundamentally change the post-war American strategy of containment.  Instead it was a mechanism of pursuing containment in a less confrontational method, offering inducements such as technology transfers or trade agreements in exchange for Soviet restraint in promoting revolutionary movements.  It was never envisaged as a means by which the USSR might be destroyed and Kissinger assumed the Soviet state would endure indefinitely in a stable bi-polar system where each side maintained its own spheres of influence and tended not to trespass too far into the other’s space.  The lure of détente faded after Nixon’s resignation and definitely was over after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 but Ronald Reagan (1912-2004; US president 1981-1989), even before assuming office, had made clear he regarded détente as defeatist, thinking the very existence of the Soviet system (which famously he called an "evil empire") a problem to be solved, not merely managed.  Reagan’s approach was radical; he was the Leon Trotsky (1879–1940; Ukrainian-Russian Marxist revolutionary & theorist murdered on the orders of comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) of the West, as opposed to détente as the Fourth Internationalist had been to the essentially similar doctrines of “peaceful co-existence” & “socialism in one state” which power-realist comrade Stalin adopted.

Entente

The Triple Alliance and Triple Entente were diplomatic arrangements formed in Europe in the decades prior to the First World War (1914-1918).  The Triple Alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary & Italy was signed in 1882 as a defensive system directed entirely against France.  It was an integral part of the series of treaties and agreements variously negotiated or imposed by Otto von Bismarck (1815-1989; chancellor of the German Empire (the "Second Reich") 1871-1890) and needs to be understood in the way it interacted with other cogs in the Bismarck machine.  That machine, a collection of inter-locking treaties and agreements (some of them secret) worked to further the interests of (1) the German Empire and (2) a general peace in Europe and was a good device in Bismarck’s capable hands but it proved lethal when less competent practitioners (who didn’t fully understand the implications) inherited the tool.  The Triple Entente was between France, Russia and the UK and was formed in 1907; in the narrow technical sense it was not a formal military alliance but an “understanding” between the three to counter the growing power of Germany and the Triple Alliance.  The Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria would become attached to the Triple Alliance with the onset of war although Italy initially remained neutral before (in what would continue to be an Italian tradition) switching sided in 1915 to join the Alliance.  Both the Alliance and the Entente played their parts in the escalating tensions which culminated in the outbreak of hostilities which would trigger the chain reaction of declarations of war.  Had Bismarck still been in Berlin, it’s unlikely things would have been allowed to assume their own momentum.

The 1904 Anglo-French entente cordiale is well-remembered as a set of landmark agreements which resolved a number of long-standing territorial, economic, and strategic points of contention between Britain and France, London and Paris both motivated by their concerns of an increasingly assertive Germany.  From the entente of 1904, lay the winding path to 1914 and all that would follow but the first entente cordiale was concluded in 1844 in the wake of Queen Victoria’s (1819–1901; Queen of the United Kingdom 1837-1901) visit to King Louis-Philippe (1773–1850; King of the French 1830-1848) the year before.  The first British monarch to set foot in France since Henry VIII (1491–1547; King of England 1509-1547), the gesture was quite remarkable given that only three years earlier, the two countries had been on the brink of war.  Things had changed, with the removal of the long-serving foreign secretary Lord Palmerston (1784–1865; UK foreign secretary or prime-minister variously 1830-1865), relations rapidly improved, assisted by the warm friendship between the two sovereigns and it was Palmerston’s replacement, Lord Aberdeen (1784–1860;UK foreign secretary or prime-minister variously 1828-1855) who conjured-up the phrase “a cordial good understanding” to which the King of France responded with “une sincère amitié” and a spirit of “cordiale entente”, the latter catching on both sides of the channel.

It was however tentative, the entente cordiale was not an alliance confirmed by a treaty, but a concept, a state of mind which the French foreign minister François Guizot (1787–1874; French foreign minister or prime-minister variously 1840-1848) explained by saying “On certain questions, the two countries have understood that they can agree and act together, without a formal undertaking and without renouncing any aspect of their freedom.”  It was in its early days also administered in a very different way, not between ambassadors or bureaucrats but a kind of informal (an actually quite affectionate) back-channel of private correspondence, unknown to other ministers or monarchs, between the French and British foreign ministers.  It was a successful approach and enabled the resolution of difficulties which might otherwise have become crises, including the right of search on their respective ships to prevent slave trading; protectorates in the Pacific, French intervention in Morocco and many squabbles between ambassadors.  It smoothed out much but wasn’t always popular with others in both countries, most of whom brought up in the more gut-wrenching and combative traditions of preceding centuries.

Portrait of Queen Isabel II and her sister the infanta Luisa Fernanda (circa 1843) by Antonio.

One sensitive question was the famous affair of the Spanish marriages, those of the young Spanish Queen Isabella II (1830-1904) and her sister (Luisa Fernanda 1832–1897), something on which the Paris & London had very different views and a satisfactory compromise seemed at hand when, in 1846, the British government fell and old Lord Palmerston returned, bent on confrontation with Paris.  Guizot loathed Palmerston and with brutal rapidity concluded the Iberian marriages to the advantage of France (both marriages proved miserable but among European royalty happy unions were anyway vanishingly elusive) and with that, the entente cordiale was over.  However, although the warmth of the relationship since has fluctuated, the Royal Navy even sinking some of the French fleet in 1940 to prevent ships falling into German hands, France and Britain have not again been at war.

Literal

Literal (pronounced lit-er-uhl)

(1) In accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical.

(2) Following the words of the original exactly.

(3) True to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual; being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy.

(4) Of, persons, tending to construe words in the strict sense or in an unimaginative way; matter-of-fact; prosaic.

(5) Of or relating to the letters of the alphabet (obsolete except for historic, technical or academic use); of or pertaining to the nature of letters.

(6) In language translation, as "literal translation", the precise meaning of a word or phrase as opposed to the actual meaning conveyed when used in another language.

(7) A typographical error, especially involving a single letter (in technical use only).

(8) In English (and other common law jurisdictions) law, one of the rules of statutory construction and interpretation (also called the plain meaning rule).

(9) In computer science, a notation for representing a fixed value in source code.

(10) In mathematics, containing or using coefficients and constants represented by letters.

1350-1400: From the Middle English from the Late Latin literalis & litteralis (of or belonging to letters or writing) from the Classical Latin litera & littera (letter, alphabetic sign; literature, books).  The meaning "taking words in their natural meaning" (originally in reference to Scripture and opposed to mystical or allegorical), is from the Old French literal (again borrowed from the Latin literalis & litteralis).  In English, the original late fourteenth meaning was "taking words in their natural meaning" and was used in reference to the understanding of text in Scripture, distinguishing certain passages from those held to be mystical or allegorical.  The meaning "of or pertaining to the letters of the alphabet " emerged in English only in the late fifteenth century although that was the meaning of the root from antiquity, a fork of that sense being " verbally exact, according to the letter of verbal expression, attested from the 1590s and it evolved in conjunction with “the primary sense of a word or passage”.  The phrase “literal-minded” which can be loaded with negative, neutral or positive connotations, is noted from 1791.  Literal is a noun & adjective, literalize is a verb, literalistic is an adjective, literalist, literalization & literalism are nouns and literally is an adverb; the noun plural is literals.

The meaning "concerned with letters and learning, learned, scholarly" was known since the mid-fifteenth century but survives now only literary criticism and the small number of universities still using “letters” in the description of degree programmes.  The Bachelor of Letters (BLitt or LittB) was derived from the Latin Baccalaureus Litterarum or Litterarum Baccalaureus and historically was a second undergraduate degree (as opposed to a Masters or other post-graduate course) which students pursued to study a specialized field or some aspect of something of particular interest.  Once common, these degrees are now rare in the English-speaking world.  It was between 1895-1977 offered by the University of Oxford and was undertaken by many Rhodes Scholars, sometimes as an adjunct course, but has now been replaced by the MLitt (Master of Letters) which has a minimal coursework component.  When the BLitt was still on the books, Oxford would sometimes confer it as a sort of consolation prize, offering DPhil candidates whose submission had proved inadequate the option of taking a BLitt if the prospect of re-writing their thesis held no appeal.  Among the dons supervising the candidates, the verb "to BLitt" emerged, the classic form being: “he was BLitt-ed you know".

Oxford BLitt in light-blue hood, circa 1907, prior to the reallocation of the shades of blue during the 1920s.

Oxford's colorful academic gowns are a footnote in the history of fashion although influences either way are difficult to detect.  The regulations of 1895 required the new BLitt and the BSc (Bachelor of Science) were to wear the same dress as the existing B.C.L (Bachelor of Civil Law) and the BM (Bachelor of Medicine) and if there was a difference between the blues used for the BCL and the BM in 1895, the implicit "respectively" (actually then its Latin equivalent) would seem to suggest the BLitt was to use the same color hood as the BCL and the BSc to use the shade of the BM and that's certainly how it appears on many contemporary depictions.  Although in the surviving record the hues of blue would in the following decades vary somewhat (and the colors were formerly re-allocated during the 1920s, the BLitt moving to a more vivid rendition of light-blue), the BLitt, BSc and BCL hoods tended always to be brighter and the BM darker.  Whether it was artistic license or an aesthetic nudge, one painter in 1927 mixed something much lighter for the BLitt, a shade more neutral and hinting at a French grey but no other artist seems to have followed.  By 1957, the BLitt and BSc gowns had returned to the colors of the 1895 decree while the BCL and BM were now in mid-blue and that remained unchanged until 1977 when the BLitt and BSc were superseded by masters’ degrees, the new MSc and MLitt given a blue hood lined with the grey of the DLitt & DSc.

Oxford BM in mid-blue hood, circa 1905.

Quite how much the work of the artist can be regarding as an accurate record of a color as it appeared is of course dubious, influenced as it is the painter’s eye, ambient light and the angle at which it was observed.  Even the descriptions used by the artists in their notes suggest there was either some variation over the years (and that would not be unexpected given the differences in the dying processes between manufacturers) or the terms for colors meant different things to different painters: The Oxford BMus hood was noted as blue (1882 & 1934), mauve (1920), lilac (1923, 1924, 1927, 1935 & 1957), dark lilac (1948) and dark purple (1926).  With improvements in photographic reproduction and the greater standardization in the industrial processes used in dying, the post-war photographic record is more reliable and lilac seems a good description for the BM and “light blue” for the BLitt.

In modern (social media) use, "literal" often is used as term of emphasis meaning something like "an exemplar of".  Although the purists will never approve, in that context, it may come to be regarded as a genuine additional meaning, although unlike a word like decimate, it wont be a meaning shift replacing the original.   

In March 2023, after the announcement of her daughter's pregnancy, Lindsay Lohan's mother (Dina Lohan (b 1962)) was quoted as saying: “I’m literally over the moon. I’m so happy, I can’t stop smiling”.  The proneness to exaggeration seems to be a family trait because Lindsay Lohan did once admit some of her youthful antics made her mother “hit the roof” which, hopefully, she didn't mean to be taken literally (although, who knows?).  The now seemingly endemic misuse of literal is not new, Henry Watson Fowler (1858–1933) in his A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926) noting errors in general use from as early as the 1820s and the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) has cited literary examples from the seventeenth century.  Interestingly, it appears objections emerged at scale only in the early twentieth century which does suggest an additional meaning may have existed or at least been evolving before the grammar Nazis imposed their censorious ways.  So endemic in English has the (mis)use become and genuine confusion so rare the pedants really should give up their carping; after all, some illustrious names have sinned:

Scrooge McDuck, literally "rolling in wealth" in his famous money bin. 

“…literally rolling in wealth…”: (Mark Twain (1835-1910), The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876)).  In fairness to Twain, it can be done.  While Donald Trump (as far as is known) does it only figuratively, Walt Disney (1901–1966) had Scrooge McDuck (created 1947) literally roll-around in the huge volumes of cash he stashed in his "money bin" (a reputed 3 cubic acres (257,440 m³; 772.321 megalitres)) but that wouldn't have been what Twain had in mind.

“The land literally flowed with milk and honey.”: (Louisa May Alcott (1832–1888), Little Women (1868-1869)).  That one may be at least a gray area because milk and honey do literally "flow" (though their varies viscosities mean the flow-rates do differ) and "the land" can be used in the sense of the country and its people rather than "the soil".   

“…Gatsby literally glowed” [after reuniting with Daisy at his house]: (F Scott Fitzgerald (1896–1940), The Great Gatsby (1925)).  Women (when pregnant or as new mothers) often are said "to be glowing" in the sense of their happiness being such it seems "to radiate" from them and this may be what Fitzgerald wished to suggest but even then it was untypical to apply the phrase to men.  However, at least debatably, some time ago, popular use reached the threshold where to describe a new mother as “glowing” could be regarded as literal because the word has become so vested with that sense.  Indeed, in January 2026, when announcing her long-standing feud with Lindsay Lohan had moved from a state of détente to a kind of entente cordiale, Paris Hilton (b 1981) told her audience: “We plan on getting the kids together.  I'm so happy for her.  She is glowing. We love being moms.”  So, that literalism of “glowing” has her imprimatur and, as is well-known, where Paris Hilton goes, the English language follows.  

The literal rule in statutory interpretation in the UK & Commonwealth

Statute law is that set in place by a body vested with appropriate authority (typically a legislature) and maintained in written form.  In providing rulings involving these laws, courts in the common-law world (although in the US the evolution has been a little different) have developed a number of principles of statutory interpretation, the most fundamental of which is “the literal rule” (sometimes called the “plain meaning rule”).  It’s the basis of all court decisions involving statues, the judge looking just to the words written down, relying on their literal meaning without any attempt to impute or interpret meaning.  The process should ensure laws are made exclusively by legislators alone; those elected for the purpose, the basis of the constitutional theory being that it’s this which grants laws their legitimacy and thus the consent of those upon they’re imposed.  However, an application of the literal rule can result in consequences which are nonsensical, immoral or unjust but the theory is that will induce the legislature to correct whatever error in drafting was the cause; it not being the task of the court to alter a duly passed law; the judiciary must interpret and not attempt to remedy the law.

A judge in 1980 observed the British constitution “…is firmly based upon the separation of powers; parliament makes the laws, the judiciary interpret them.  When Parliament legislates to remedy what the majority of its members at the time perceive to be a defect… the role of the judiciary is confined to ascertaining from the words that parliament has approved as expressing its intention what that intention was, and to giving effect to it. Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they themselves consider that the consequences of doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral.”  So a judge should not depart from the literal meaning of words even if the outcome is unjust.  If they do, the will of parliament is contradicted.

However, some things were so absurd even the most black-letter-law judges (of which there were not a few) could see the problem.  What emerged was “the golden rule”, the operation of which a judge in 1857 explained by saying the “…grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther.”  The golden rule thus operates to avoid an absurdity which an application of the literal rule might produce.

The golden rule was though deliberately limited in scope, able to be used only in examples of absurdity so extreme it would be a greater absurdity not to rectify.  Thus “the mischief rule” which with judges exercised rather more discretion within four principles, first mentioned in 1584 at a time when much new legislation was beginning to emerge to supersede the old common law which had evolved over centuries of customary practice.  Given the novelty of codified national law replacing what previously been administered with differences between regions, the need for some debugging was not unexpected, hence the four principles of the mischief rule: (1) What was the common law before this law?, (2) What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide and thus necessitate this law?, (3) What remedy for the mischief and defect is in this law”, & (4) The role of the judge is to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.  The rule was intended to determine what mischief a statute was intended to correct and interpret the statute justly to avoid any mischief.

The mischief rule closes loopholes in the law while allowing them to evolve in what may be a changing environment but does permit an element of the retrospective and depends on the opinion and prejudices of the judge: an obvious infringement on the separation of powers protected by the strict application of literal rule.  So it is a trade-off, the literal rule the basic tool of statutory interpretation which should be deviated from only in those exceptional cases where its application would create an absurdity or something manifestly unjust.  This the golden rule allows while the mischief rule extends judicial discretion, dangerously some have said, permitting the refinement of law at the cost of increasing the role of the judges, a group where views and prejudices do vary.  From all this has evolved the debate about judicial activism.

Colonel Theodore Roosevelt (TR, 1858–1919; VPOTUS 1901, POTUS 1901-1909) with the 1^st US Volunteer Cavalry and troopers of the 10th Cavalry after the capture of Kettle Hill during the Battle of San Juan Hill, July 1898.

Fought between April-August 1898, the Spanish–American War followed the warship USS Maine (an “armoured cruiser” best thought of as one of the smaller “pre-Dreadnought” battleships) in February blowing up and sinking while anchored in Cuba’s Havana Harbor; 261 of the ship’s complement of 355 were killed.  Based on the early reports and available evidence, the US Navy’s explosives experts suggested the blast appeared to have been caused by a spontaneous coal bunker fire but Roosevelt, then serving as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, pushed back, labelling that conclusion “premature” and insisted sabotage was possible, telling colleagues: “the Maine was sunk by an act of dirty treachery on the part of the Spaniards.”  That might have sounded strange to those who have read the press reports of courteous Spaniards having welcomed her arrival in Havana with the presentation to the captain of a case of Jerez sherry and William McKinley (1843–1901; US president 1897-1901) the next evening, hosting his first diplomatic dinner in the White House, having the Spanish minister sit next to him, despite almost a dozen other envoys enjoying precedence.  Roosevelt however had his war-paint on and he had the enthusiastic support of William Randolph Hearst’s (1863–1951) New York newspaper the Journal, something of the FoxNews of its day and an early example of “yellow journalism”.

Unconvinced after having learned the Maine had been “a floating bomb, its forecastle packed with gunpowder and its magazines laced with shortable wires”, McKinley ordered an investigation, saying: “I don’t propose to be swept off my feet by the catastrophe.  I have been through one war [the US Civil War 1861-1865] and I have seen the dead piled up, and I do not want to see another.”   He called for an investigation, which dragged on for months.  While McKinley’s enquiry percolated, Hearst had the Journal print fanciful diagrams showing how the Spanish “Infernal Machine” had hit the hull while Roosevelt, taking advantage of the temporary absence of the Secretary of the Navy, ordered the Pacific squadron to sea, put the European and South Atlantic stations on alert, demanded of Congress the immediate authorization of the unlimited recruitment of seamen and ordered large quantities of guns and ammunition.  By the time McKinley's investigation reported the cause of the sinking as an “external explosion”, Roosevelt and Hearst had honed public opinion and, the die cast, a reluctant McKinley took his country to war.

A stylized image of the explosion which sank the USS Maine, published in 1898 by Kurz and Allison (a Chicago-based publisher of chromolithographs), Nautical History Gallery and Museum.

In a move that would wholly be unfamiliar to bloodthirsty, non-combatant modern politicians who prefer to sit at a safe distance to watch other people’s children fight their wars, Roosevelt’s view was: “I have done all I could to bring on the war, because it is a just war, and the sooner we meet it the better.  Now that it has come, I have no business to ask others to do the fighting and stay home myself.”  He resigned from the administration and headed for Cuba with his “Rough Riders” (a collection of “cowboys, idealists. Veteran soldiers, Native Americans and adventurers”), assembled as the 1^st US Volunteer Cavalry, a formation John Hay (1838-1905; US Secretary of State 1898-1905) thought “ideally suited” to what be labelled a “splendid little war.”  Although brief, the conflict was of great significance because it was at this point the US became an imperial power, its defeat of Spain resulting in the acquisition of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines, while Cuba would until 1902 remain a US protectorate.  By the late twentieth century a consensus had emerged that the explosion was most likely caused by an "internal event" and not a Spanish mine but much had since happened and "what's done is done and can't be undone".

The Rough Riders were one of several units formed ad hoc which were dissolved with the end of the war and while the notion of what were quasi-private militias operating in concert with regular forces may seem curious, before World War I (1914-1918) changed the public perception of war, for some men, the lure of combat still had a romantic aura.  While the contribution of the Rough Riders strategically was slight, it was real and it was the action of 1 July which became the war’s most famous engagement.  On that day, in a combined assault with regular army troops, Roosevelt on horseback led the Rough Riders in charges up Kettle Hill and San Juan Hill; there over a thousand casualties with some 200 killed.  He returned to the US as a national hero and in November 1898 was elected governor of New York before being "persuaded" to run as McKinley’s running mate on the Republican ticket for the 1900 presidential election.  Roosevelt would have been familiar with the nineteenth century there was a joke about two brothers: “One ran off to sea and the other became vice-president; neither were ever heard of again” and may have anticipated the view of John Nance Garner III (1868–1967, VPOTUS 1933-1941 so thus a reasonable judge of these things), that being VPOTUS was “...not worth a bucket of warm piss” (which is polite company usually is sanitized as “...bucket of warm spit”).  Accordingly, he was diffident about seeking the nomination which in his day was not thought a stepping stone to higher things.  That’s changed and a number of VPOTUSs have become POTUS; on a few occasions that has worked well but of late the record has not been encouraging, the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; VPOTUS 1961-1963, POTUS 1963-1968), Richard Nixon (1913-1994; VPOTUS 1953-1961, POTUS 1969-1974), George H. W. Bush (George XLI, 1924-2018; VPOTUS 1981-1989, POTUS 1989-1993) and Joe Biden (b 1942; VPOTUS 2008-2017, POTUS 2021-2025) 1963-1968, all ending badly, in despair, disgrace, defeat and decrepitude respectively.  Roosevelt in 1900 told friends he’d rather “…be anything else, say, a professor of history” but finally decided he could make it a solid platform for a run for the presidency in 1904.

His path to the nomination for VPOTUS was made somewhat smoother by the party bosses in New York wanting him out because although popular with the voters, for the machine men used to running things, he was a loose cannon and one they’d sooner have sitting in an inconsequential office in Washington DC than making trouble in New York where he exercised real power.  Mark Hanna (1837-1904), the great Republican boss, called him “that damned cowboy” (which, in many ways, could be read literally) and Mark Twain disapproved, saying he was “clearly insane… and insanest upon war and its supreme glories.”  Hanna was of course aware of the danger for a VPOTUS is first in the line of succession and he’d tried to stop the nomination, imploring the delegates to “see reason”, telling them: “Don’t any of you realize that there’s only one life between that madman and the presidency?”  It was to no avail and in 1900 the McKinley/Roosevelt ticket prevailed, prompting Hanna to tell McKinley: “Your sacred duty for the next four years is to stay alive” and the president did his best but, through no fault of his own, was within months cut down by the gunfire of an anarchist and “that damned cowboy” was sworn in as Chief Magistrate of the United States.  In what must now seem an extraordinary example of judicial alacrity, within six weeks of McKinley’s death, the anarchist assassin had been tried, convicted and executed in New York’s Auburn Prison, dispatched by the New York State Electrician.

A full-page advertisement taken out by Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) in the New York Daily News (1 May 1989).  When he said "BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY", he meant it literally.

“New York State Electrician” really was the title of the state’s chief executioner and the title was derived from the use of the electric chair.  The first appointment was made in 1890 and despite New York staging its last execution in 1963, the position was not disestablished until the Nixon-era decision by the USSC (US Supreme Court) in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), which had the effect of imposing a national moratorium on the use of the death penalty until 1976 when it was held certain states successfully had re-written their statutes in conformity with the US constitution.  Intriguingly, between 1890-1963 the fee received by the State Electrician was never changed from the original US$150 (with a bonus US$50 paid for additional executions performed on the same day).  That was despite substantial inflation (and the related decrease in the purchasing power of the US$): By 1963, the equivalent value of 1890’s US$150 was calculated at US$504.40 and by 2026 the number was US$5,342.67.  Mr Trump ran his advertisement in four New York City newspapers at a total cost of US$85,000 so, had the New York State Electrician still be plying his specialized trade, what was paid to the papers would have covered some 567 executions but if the fee had been adjusted in line with inflation (the value of 1990’s US$150 by 1989 having risen to US$2,043.96), it would have paid for fewer than 42 to “get the chair”.

Movements in the value of the US$ (inflation & purchasing power), 1890-2026.

Roosevelt’s military exploits in what came to be called the Battle of San Juan Heights made him a national celebrity, a role he was well-equipped to exploit and when late in 1898 he's returned to the US, his mind turned to politics and his goal was the White House; for that he needed a stepping stone.  New York’s Republican Party establishment preferred to endorse candidates who were (1) sane and (2) dependent on the machine and thus compliant so were thus not enamoured with the leader of the Rough Riders but above all they needed someone likely to win an election, a quality Roosevelt appeared to possess, unlike the alternatives.  So, reluctantly, the New York Republicans adopted them as their candidate in the 1898 gubernatorial election and Roosevelt stormed into the campaign with the same enthusiasm he'd a few months earlier displayed on horseback while leading charges against the Spanish.  With a sense for publicity which never deserted him, he had Sergeant Buck Taylor (who’d charged with him in Cuba) speak at an election rally where he told the assembled crowd: “…and when it came to the great day he led us up San Juan Hill like sheep to the slaughter and so he will lead you.”  Roosevelt won the election, winning the popular vote 49.02% to 47.70% so clearly not too many New Yorkers took Sergeant Taylor’s words literally.