Posted on 03/25/2016 12:50:59 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
Theodore Roosevelt to Sir George Otto Trevelyan, June 19, 1908
There is very much to be said in favor of the theory that the public has a right to demand as long service from any man who is doing good service as it thinks will be useful; and during the last year or two I have been rendered extremely uncomfortable both by the exultation of my foes over my announced intention to retire, and by the real uneasiness and chagrin felt by many good men because, as they believed, they were losing quite needlessly the leader in whom they trusted, and who they believed could bring to a successful conclusion certain struggles which they regarded as of vital concern to the national welfare. Moreover, it was of course impossible to foresee, and I did not foresee, when I made my public announcement of my intention, that the leadership I then possessed would continue (so far as I am able to tell) unbroken, as has actually been the case; and that the people who believed in me and trusted me and followed me would three or four years later still feel that I was the man of all others whom they wished to see President. Yet such I think has been the case; and therefore, when I felt obliged to insist on retiring and abandoning the leadership, now and then I felt ugly qualms as to whether I was not refusing to do what I ought to do and abandoning great work on a mere fantastic point of honor.
There are strong reasons why my course should be condemned; yet I think that the countervailing reasons are still stronger. Of course, when I spoke I had in view the precedent set by Washington and continued ever since, the precedent which recognizes the fact that as there inheres in the Presidency more power than in any other office in any great republic or constitutional monarchy of modern times, it can only be saved from abuse by having the people as a whole accept as axiomatic the position that no man has held it for more than a limited time. I don't think that any harm comes from the concentration of power in one man's hands, provided the holder does not keep it for more than a certain, definite time, and then returns to the people from whom he sprang.
In the great days of the Roman Republic no harm whatever came from the dictatorship, because great though the power of the dictator was, after a comparatively short period he surrendered it back to those from whom he gained it. On the other hand, the history of the first and second French Republics, not to speak of the Spanish-American Republics, not to speak of the Commonwealth, in Seventeenth Century England, has shown that the strong man who is good may very readily subvert free institutions if he and the people at large grow to accept his continued possession of vast power as being necessary to good government. It is a very unhealthy thing that any man should be considered necessary to the people as a whole, save in the way of meeting some given crisis. Moreover, in a republic like ours the vital need is that there shall be a general recognition of the moral law, of the law which, as regards public men, means belief in efficient and disinterested service for the public rendered without thought of personal gain, and above all without the thought of self-perpetuation in office.
I regard the memories of Washington and Lincoln as priceless heritages for our people, just because they are the memories of strong men, of men who can not be accused of weakness or timidity, of men who I believe were quite as strong, for instance, as Cromwell or Bismarck, and very much stronger than the Louis Napoleon type, who, nevertheless, led careers marked by disinterestedness just as much as by strength; who, like Timoleon and Hampden, in very deed, and not as a mere matter of oratory or fine writing, sought just the public good, the good of the people as a whole, as the first of all considerations.
Now, my ambition is that, in however small a way, the work I do shall be along the Washington and Lincoln lines. While President I have been President, emphatically; I have used every ounce of power there was in the office and I have not cared a rap for the criticisms of those who spoke of my 'usurpation of power'; for I know that the talk was all nonsense and that there was no usurpation. I believe that the efficiency of this Government depends upon its possessing a strong central executive, and wherever I could establish a precedent for strength in the executive, as I did for instance as regards the external affairs in the case of sending the fleet around the world, taking Panama, settling affairs of Santo Domingo and Cuba; or as I did in internal affairs in settling the anthracite coal strike, in keeping order in Nevada this year when the Federation of Miners threatened anarchy, or as I have done in bringing the big corporations to book—why, in all these cases I have felt not merely that my action was right in itself, but that in showing the strength of, or in giving strength to, the executive, I was establishing a precedent of value. I believe in a strong executive; I believe in power; but I believe that responsibility should go with power, and that it is not well that the strong executive should be a perpetual executive. Above all and beyond all I believe as I have said before that the salvation of this country depends upon Washington and Lincoln representing the type of leader to which we are true. I hope that in my acts I have been a good President, a President who has deserved well of the Republic; but most of all, I believe that whatever value my service may have, comes even more from what I am than from what I do. . . .
"A few months ago three old back-country farmers turned up in Washington and after awhile managed to get in to see me. They were rugged old fellows, as hairy as Boers and a good deal of the Boer type. They hadn't a black coat among them, and two of them wore no cravats; that is, they just had on their working clothes, but all cleaned and brushed. When they finally got to see me they explained that they hadn't anything whatever to ask, but that they believed in me, believed that I stood for what they regarded as the American ideal, and as one rugged old fellow put it, 'We want to shake that honest hand.' Now this anecdote seems rather sentimental as I tell it, and I do not know that I can convey to you the effect the incident produced on me; but it was one of the very many incidents which have occurred, and they have made me feel that I am under a big debt of obligation to the good people of this country, and that I am bound not by any unnecessary action of mine to forfeit their respect, not to hurt them by taking away any part of what they have built up as their ideal of me.
Yeah? So?
Fantastic thought provoking post.
Now if only the majority of our countrymen were inclined to think sober deep thoughts about meaningful things...
We’d be So Much better off!
We need a honest strong man of character Bull Moose president like Teddy, now more than ever.
I think you missed the point.
“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
I'm sure a lot of the GOPe agree with you, considering that Teddy was the first in a long line of RINOs.
ah yes, we have this man to thank for the feds illegally scooping up state land in the name of national preservation, which is why I avoid national parks at all costs.
You’ve got to be kidding me with a smear like that.
The current GOP has devolved into a corrupt Uniparty apparatus mainly because not enough of “we the people” maintain high expectations for leaders of great character, above all else, nor enforce consequence for those who are grossly untrustworthy.
Teddy was an Extraordinary man for our country and the people.
Who would you want to replace his image on Mt Rushmore, an ideologically purist, like Robespierre?
Strong take-no-crap foreign policy leader.
Built up our military (talk softly, carry a big stick)
Independent thinker who bravely addressed food safety crisis, natural resource conservation, and corrupt monopoly “trusts” in the face of so called libertarian purists who refused to acknowledge that ongoing head-in-sand laissez-faire approach was not adequately addressing: gross food and drug adulteration, de-nuded forests wildlife vanishing and poisoned rivers, and big business commodity collusion that screwed the public.
He pissed off much of the establishment of his day.
I don’t know what you’re trolling about for here, but you may be more at home at an Occupy-Now crypto-anarchist Ron Paul bong meetup.
Cheers
RE: “We need a honest strong man of character Bull Moose president like Teddy, now more than ever.
I’m sure a lot of the GOPe agree with you, considering that Teddy was the first in a long line of RINOs.”
BTW, what everyone seems to forget is the actual name of the “Bull Moose” party: The American Progressive Party.
Absurd eccentric purist that makes conservatives look like nut-jobs.
National parks are ideally unique landmark treasures which should be part of future generations American Heritage.
The problem is scope creep by the fed, which requires sober serious public review and expressed will.
You’d want to sell off Yosemite, or Yellowstone and develop it? Laissez-faire only works when we’re all on the same moral decency frame of values, beliefs and interests.
Governance comes in because of conflict.
Alot of government land ownership is obscene over reach.
But don’t let perfect be the enemy of good when it comes to public land original intent to preserve and conserve.
RE: “yes, we have this man to thank for the feds illegally scooping up state land in the name of national preservation, which is why I avoid national parks at all costs.”
A “progressive” for public causes one hundred years ago was a much different animal than the communist-progressives of today.
Teddy alienated establishment republicans with championing populist causes, and the GOP were glad to be rid of him once and for all because his lawmaking cost them lots of business wealth.
Teddy’s Progressive party causes genuinely addressed huge public safety and social ills that long dogged this nation.
Many feared, that left unaddressed, these issuee would eventually lead to further anarchist-communist revolt.
I encourage and challenge everyone here to be intellectually honest when it comes to the role of government regulation “protection” we’ve perhaps to comfortably come to enjoy, versus just how damn bad things could be without ANY food, drug, medical, transportation, labor safety, utility & financial banking, environmental regulation.
The good old days coming off the end of the 1800’s Wild West, may have had plenty of precious liberty, but there was tremendous unjust injury by industries that were grossly negligent about the public they served.
The goverance problem we have now is that the regulation pendulum has swung way too far toward government control for the sake of perpetuating and protecting their jobs first and foremost, at great expense to the public.
Our public servants are our now masters.
RE: “BTW, what everyone seems to forget is the actual name of the “Bull Moose” party: The American Progressive Party”
I'm glad he did not serve another term. Nonetheless, he was a fascinating individual, and much about his life was admirable. Too bad he turned out to be a RINO. Don't bother posting any more of your not well thought out insults to me. I'm not interested in what you think.
You assume the states would not preserve those lands, therefore, you are condoning the usurpation of the A1, S8 as well as the 10th Amendments. The federal government was given authority to purchase lands from the states in order to carry out its duties as listed in A1, S8 of the US Constitution, not take them at will.
I can understand this better than the example in the original thread - I didn’t know TR was Greek as that’s what that was to me! Tired, I guess...
I like plain spoken English. I wouldn’t have fared well in his time I’m afraid or our forefathers...
That you would willfully identify with The Most Murderous core of libertarians anarchists of the French Revolution speaks volumes of your ignorance and unhinged mindset.
Your presence here actually threatens respectable members of this forum because you identify with notorious domestic mob terrorists that killed 250,000 fellow citizens in a multi-year reign of terror.
You may as well name yourself Pol Pot.
I am requesting that you be removed from FR for our credibility and future existence of this forum.
Harm no one and remain isolated until you expire.
http://www.historytoday.com/marisa-linton/robespierre-and-terror
“Throughout the year of Jacobin rule, it was the *sans-culottes who kept them in power. But the price of that support was the blood-letting.
The number of death sentences in Paris was 2,639, while the total number during the Terror in the whole of France (including Paris) was *16,594. With the exception of Paris (where many of the more important prisoners were transferred to appear before the Revolutionary Tribunal) most of the executions were carried out in regions of revolt such as the Vendée, Lyon and Marseilles. There were wide regional variations. Because on the whole the Jacobins were meticulous in maintaining a legal structure for the Terror clear records exist for official death sentences. But many more people were murdered without formal sentences imposed in a court of law. Some died in overcrowded and unsanitary prisons awaiting trial, while others died in the civil wars and federalist revolts, their deaths unrecorded. The historian Jean-Clément Martin, suggests that *up to 250,000 insurgents and 200,000 republicans met their deaths in the Vendée, a war which lasted from 1793-96 in which both sides suffered appalling atrocities.”
Sans-Culotte
Since Mar 19, 1998
view home page, enter name:
~ About ~ Links ~ Contact ~ In Forum ~ Mail To ~
Return
I probably should not have chosen the screen name of Sans-Culotte, because most think it merely means “without pants” Actually, it is French for “without knee breeches”, and refers to the most revolutionary part of the Paris Mob during the French Revolution. The “Sans-Culottes” eschewed the tight-fitting knee-breeches of the aristocracy and opted for loose (usually striped with the French tri-colors) trousers. They are generally depicted with a “phrygian” cap (sort of like a loose stocking cap) on their heads with a tricolor cockade on it. Some even had the words “Mort du Tyrans” tattooed on their chests! If you’ve ever seen the classic MGM Ronald Colman film of “A Tale of Two Cities” (or any version for that matter), the Sans-Cullottes are the radicals which includes the DeFarges who are clamoring “off with their heads”.
I chose the name during the reign of the tyrannical Clintons because I thought it had a revolutionary firebrand sound to it. I didn’t think about the fact that not everyone reads as much about the era of the French Revolution and the Age of Napoleon as I do, so I suppose people must think I am some sort of nudist who goes about without pants!
For more info on the Sans-Culottes, go HERE.
I don’t identify with them, dumbass. It’s just a screen name.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.