Replies

"So far as I can tell, it's just more work of Democrat devils saying: "oh, do you like trashing our hero Wilson? Well, then we'll just trash the h*ll out of your hero Teddy Roosevelt!!"."

I have no need to trash anybody. But I'd like to propose a hypothetical to you. Let's say I did want to trash the guy, what would that look like? Here's what I would do.

I would start out by talking about Theodore Roosevelt and eugenics. I would highlight the letter he wrote to notorious eugenist Charles B. Davenport. I would point out, that the direct MP3 audio for that letter can be found here, and also mention that this letter was on YouTube, one of the highest profile websites on the planet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl33G84FDF0 Which, you know, makes it highly accessible for everybody.

But I wouldn't stop there. I would post an image of the letter he wrote to Davenport, so people could see that it is real, and see the letterhead on it with the publication date, like this:

... followed by ending my post with the full text so that people can use their browsers to search the text in this window, also knowing that increases it showing up in generic search results. That is what I would do and how I would do it.

You know. Hypothetically speaking.

I am greatly interested in the two memoirs you have sent me. They are very instructive, and, from the standpoint of our country, very ominous. You say that these people are not themselves responsible, that it is "society" that is responsible. I agree with you if you mean, as I suppose you do, that society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind. It is really extraordinary that our people refuse to apply to human beings such elementary knowledge as every successful farmer is obliged to apply to his own stock breeding. Any group of farmers who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum. Yet we fail to understand that such conduct is rational compared to the conduct of a nation which permits unlimited breeding from the worst stocks, physically and morally, while it encourages or connives at the cold selfishness or the twisted sentimentality as a result of which the men and women ought to marry, and if married have large families, remain celebates or have no children or only one or two. Some day we will realize that the prime duty - the inescapable duty - of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type. - Theodore Roosevelt

I've been at this against progressives for 15 years, writing about and recording the evils of progressivism to increase accessibility. It would be grossly negligent for me to exclude the guy who was the only presidential candidate for The Progressive Party. It might even be outright malpractice if I didn't even mention TR from time to time.

It is hard to have to rethink people who have been presented to me as heroes, had aircraft carriers named after them, and had personal qualities I admired.

I always respected Richard Nixon-but it is hard for me to defend him for his economic policies (gold standard, price controls) so I have to square that circle sometimes. In his case, I will always respect him for his bombing Hanoi and mining of Haiphong harbor to bring the North Vietnamese Communists to the bargaining table.

But is a challenge for most of us to rethink certain people, but over the last 30 years, I have had to do just that with Theodore Roosevelt. I view him quite differently now than I did as recently as the Nineties.

ProgressingAmerica: "I would start out by talking about Theodore Roosevelt and eugenics. ...
I've been at this against progressives for 15 years, writing about and recording the evils of progressivism to increase accessibility."

There's no doubt that ideas related to eugenics swept the world, from roughly 1890 to 1930, after which both the facts of science and evils inherent in human nature began to discredit assumptions underlying the word "eugenics".

However, once again, you are reading history backwards, this time from Auschwitz to Teddy Roosevelt's "New Nationalism", and that is neither good history nor fair to otherwise decent historical figures.