Posted on 12/01/2015 2:06:43 PM PST by ProgressingAmerica
When we think of President Woodrow Wilson, we think of a multitude of historical events: the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank and other progressive legislation at home; idealistic internationalism, a world war to "keep the world safe for democracy," and promotion of the League of Nations abroad. Lately, we think of the Princeton University students protesting against him. In mid-November, they were agitating for the former university president's name to be removed from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs over his legacy of white supremacy.
But there's another reason conservatives should revisit Woodrow Wilson.
We need to hold him responsible for the fact that many Americans don't know the timeline of world or American history and don't know much about how constitutional government works in the United States: One hundred years ago, in 1916, the Wilson administration put the clout of the federal government behind a new curricular development - social studies.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
"The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible. By the time a man has grown old enough to have a son in college he has specialized. The university should generalize the treatment of its undergraduates, should struggle to put them in touch with every force of life. Every man of established success is dangerous to society. His tendency is to keep society as it is. His success has been founded upon it. You will not find many reformers among the successful men. A man told me once that he left college interested in humanity. At 40 he was interested only in an industry to which he had applied himself. At 60 he was interested only in his bank account. Any social change affects that bank account. Society cannot progress without change."
(From the Papers of Woodrow Wilson, volume 19)
Grandma always knew best because history is CYCLICAL, not a 1 to 10 "Progressive-ism". And Grandma being part of history, has what the progressive lack, COMMON SENSE!
There’s much we can blame on Woodrow Wilson.
Woodrow Wilson was also pretty nasty to the suffragettes imprisoning them and stuff like that.
More people are taking a second look at Woodrow Wilson, and not in a good way.
For example, all of the presidents after Washington and until Wilson used Washington's first Inaugural as their template on how they constructed their own, which can be seen in the references to humbly regarding the people and their vote of confidence. There were a number of other sequences that made the inaugural more like a thoughtful sermon. The inaugural really indicates what is closest to the president's heart at the time of his inaugural.
However, when it came to Wilson, he seemed to have completely ignored the Washington Inaugural all together. Reading his speech had none of the marks of a traditional inaugural. He seemed to take joy in not being presidential, or at least wanting to do things that would turn the presidency on its head.
All of the democrats after him followed his example making the inaugural more like a campaign speech.
The Republicans more or less followed George Washington's example.
Just some info I have stored in my hard-wired brain.
A liberal thinks making the same mistakes as their liberal grandparents is progress and consults a mirror when in doubt.
Thanks very much for sharing your research on the inaugural addressess. Would you consider publishing that? I think others would find it interesting.
pong
Couldn’t have happened to a nicer piece of garbage.
That is a great idea I just might do that.
It was amazing reading them all lined up next to each other. The one president who made me weep was Franklin Pierce - of all the presidents. And I don't know why, I think it may have been his sincerity. I was surprised most by Lyndon Johnson. When I read JFK's three times, I tried to figure out what all the hype was about. His inaugural was pretty much nothing linked together by some highly crafted phrases that sounded like they were lifted from someone else. Abraham Lincoln seemed necessarily distracted at both of his inaugurals.
Thanks for the suggestion.
I would also be interested in reading your research paper.
I’m not defending the legacy of Wilson. In terms of policy and ideas, he was one of our worst Presidents.
However, If Universities want to be consistent, many of them would have to drop their names.
Let’s take YALE for instance.
The school was named after ELIHU YALE, a slave owner and in fact, a slave trader. What are they going to name it? Hillary Clinton University after their illustrious alumni? Yeah, that’s the trick.
How about Stanford University, named after Leland Stanford? He was well known for being anti-Chinese immigration and well known for defending caucasians as the “superior” race.
January 1862, Stanford said, “The presence of numbers of that degraded and distinct people would exercise a deleterious effect upon the superior race.”
His statement was initially received with widespread enthusiasm, and Stanford was lauded as a defender of the white race. Public opinion shifted when it was revealed that Stanford’s Central Pacific Railroad had recruited and imported thousands of Chinese laborers to construct the railway track.
So, how to rename Stanford University? Hmmm... Moonbeam University (yea, that’s the ticket ).
Although Ronald Reagan University would be better... :)
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.