Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Very Worst President of the United States
Enter Stage Right ^ | Aug. 11, 2003 | Bruce Walker

Posted on 08/11/2003 7:17:06 AM PDT by danielmryan

The very worst president

By Bruce Walker

web posted August 11, 2003

I have written in the past about the possible benefits of men like Douglas MacArthur being elected President, Dick Cheney being made Chief Justice or Bill Simon winning the California Governorship. These describe the theme of latent greatness in good Americans.

But what lies at the opposite end of goodness? Who was the very worst American president? Woodrow Wilson, perhaps the first true "liberal" of modern American politics, was a president so awful for America and for the world that it is worthwhile to recount as a cautionary tale some of his larger failures.

Begin with his election in 1912. Wilson received barely forty percent of the popular vote, with the two Republicans (T.R., of course, as a Bull Moose) collecting sixty percent of the vote. But that understates Wilson's utter lack of any mandate. The vote that Wilson received came largely from the South, where blacks could not vote and where Republicans were a threatened group.

How much of a one party state was the South then? Consider that while Theodore Roosevelt in 1904 was receiving almost sixty percent of the national vote, in some states of the South T.R. received less than ten percent of the vote, even less than five percent of the vote.

Wilson almost immediately began undoing the good work of past Republican administrations on black civil rights. The Leftist notion that Republicans once supported black civil rights and then stopped is just patently false: Republicans, if anything, were more solicitous of black rights in the period from 1876 to 1920 than they had been before then.

Blacks could, and did, serve as delegates to the Republican National Convention, as federal officers appointed by Republican presidents, and even as Republican congressmen. Only when the Democrats reacquired the White House in 1912, did the gradual progress of blacks stop. And only the slavish dedication of black leaders to the Democrat Party today can mask the plain facts that Wilson and Truman were bigots of the very worst sort.

Woodrow adored The Birth of a Nation, which presents the Ku Klux Klan as a necessary post-Reconstruction force. He urged blacks to return to the cotton fields. He re-segregated the civil service. W.E.B. Dubois had broken ranks with other blacks to support a Democrat, rather than a Republican, in 1912. Dubois soon regretted his decision. Wilson reneged on his promise to create a national race commission (something that his Republican successor, the ever maligned Warren Harding, would do.)

Wilson's bigotry was not confined to blacks. He also loathed Orientals. His two Republican predecessors had carefully intervened to prevent anti-Japanese legislation from being enacted in West Coast states. They urged, quite properly, that slapping Japan - a growing industrial power that sought friendly relations with America - was a national security question.

Woodrow, however, made no such effort. As a consequence, the combination of strength and fairness which Theodore Roosevelt had used to improve relations with Japan, which was complemented by Taft - who was quite familiar with the Orient - was all squandered by Wilson.

Even after the horror of the Great War - when all decent people were grappling with ways to prevent another war - Wilson was destroying the possibility of bringing Japan into the company of western nations, a principal factor in the Second World War.

Japan in 1919 proposed to insert a quite reasonable clause inserted into the covenant of the League of Nations supporting the principle of racial equality. Alternatives to the proposed clause were rejected as unsatisfactory by the Japanese. Japan, like America, had been one of the major allied powers.

They forced a vote, and President Wilson, chairman of the League of Nations Commission, again attempted to avoid a vote. When it passed by a vote of eleven to six, Wilson claimed that the amendment had failed since the vote was not unanimous.

Wilson also appointed as Secretary of State that paragon of virtue, the virulently racist and anti-Semitic perennial Democrat nominee, William Jennings Bryan. His famous (or infamous) "Cross of Gold" speech referred to the same "New York Jews" that seem to have so troubled Harry Truman.

Wilson ran for reelection in 1916, campaigning on the slogan "He Kept Us Out of War." After he won and after he took his oath of office the second time, Wilson asked Congress to declare war on the Central Powers. In retrospect, we see Imperial Germany as a bad nation like Nazi Germany.

But in the Great War, there was no moral high ground. If ever there was a war in which America needed to remain neutral, and use its wealth and good offices to provide a lasting peace, this was the war. By entering the war, however, Wilson insured that Germans would view America as hostile to Germany.

As a consequence, the ghastly Treaty of Versailles caused quiet rage in Germany, deep cynicism in Italy, indifference in Communist Russia, apathy in France, and alienation in Japan. The three horrid totalitarianism systems of the Twentieth Century - Fascism, Communism, and National Socialism - each were helped mightily by Wilson's arrogance and ignorance.

Wilson, who deemed himself indispensable to mankind, concealed his mental incapacity just when the future of the human race was being hammered out in the salons of Europe. He failed, utterly completely and totally. Even honorable progressives, like LaGuardia, had almost unbridled contempt for Woodrow Wilson.

Charles Evans Hughes, who would later serve as one of the best Chief Justices in American history, almost won the 1916 election. Indeed, if blacks in the South had been allowed to vote, Hughes would have won a landslide in the popular vote. Had Hughes won, a hundred million or so lives would have been saved.

What can be said about Wilson? One of the least damaging parts of his awful eight years happened at the very beginning, when the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, allowing a federal income tax.

Bruce Walker is a senior writer with Enter Stage Right. He is also a frequent contributor to The Pragmatist and The Common Conservative.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: history; muckraking; paperingover; president; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-107 next last
To: William McKinley
"As for the idea that we should kill those who would kill us, that is just common sense. "

'We' or kids from Iowa and Wisconsin?

It is logical for me to conclude that Max Boot thinks Wilson's world view is something to be emulated (thus Wilson is a hero of Boot's) just as its logical for you to deny a very simply fact.

You doth protest too much.


81 posted on 08/11/2003 12:50:39 PM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
We being our country, and its volunteer military.

Even your favorite President used troops to forcefully project American interests abroad.

82 posted on 08/11/2003 1:00:28 PM PDT by William McKinley (Vote Clinton Off: http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Wilson's world view and Boot's are considerably different, unless you believe that Wilson's worldview is the same as Reagan's and both Roosevelts' (in which case, the designation is meaningless).

As a matter of fact, the very article you posted to has Boot rejecting much if not most of Wilson's worldview.

Yet you act as if it doesn't. I don't know why you are assuming, on a text based message board, that people cannot read. They can, and they can clearly see that you suffered from very poor reading comprehension on Boot's article, and have refused to back off of it.

83 posted on 08/11/2003 1:03:53 PM PDT by William McKinley (Vote Clinton Off: http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Never to build a 'global hegemony' some geek from Harvard dream up while on holiday.

Did you think Reagan made a mistake, as the neoconservatives say, when he pulled the troops out of Lebanon after the Beruit barracks bombing?

Should be a good litmus test on where you stand...
84 posted on 08/11/2003 1:12:11 PM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: danielmryan
bttt
85 posted on 08/11/2003 1:18:18 PM PDT by citizen (Tom Tancredo for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley

Why would a conservative of Boot's ilk even mention Wilson? Again, thou doth protest too much. Most neutral readers could plainly ascertain that Boot is attempting to reconcile the internationalist position as demonstrated by Woodrow Wilson to that of the conservative lexicon.

You can be a denialist all you want, it does not change the obvious.

Neither of the Roosevelts were particularly conservative on anything, and Teddy Roosevelt in particula did a lot of damage to the office by being such a public persona. Reagan simply held the office after over 100 years of generally declining Executive leadership.


86 posted on 08/11/2003 1:20:36 PM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
At the time, I do not think it was a mistake, given what we knew and the state of the world at the time.

Given how things turned out, do you believe that withdrawing our troops after a terrorist attack helped quell terrorism?

Should be a good litmus test for where you stand.

87 posted on 08/11/2003 1:23:23 PM PDT by William McKinley (Vote Clinton Off: http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Do you think Thomas Sowell also has "very poor reading comprehension on Boot's article?"

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030106.shtml



88 posted on 08/11/2003 1:25:56 PM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley

What a lawyer like response, I'll take that as a nonanswer.

'Terrorism' continued at the pace it had been before and after Beruit.

89 posted on 08/11/2003 1:29:25 PM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Why, actually, yes. In this case, I do think he suffered from shockingly poor reading comprehension in this instance.

Either that or he forgot that just because milk is white, and chalk is white, does not mean that milk is chalk.

This conversation was beyond boring quite a while ago. Feel free to continue flogging the dead horse. Eventually, it may dawn on you to get off it, because no matter how hard you whip it, you aren't going to win this race.

90 posted on 08/11/2003 1:30:31 PM PDT by William McKinley (Vote Clinton Off: http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: danielmryan
leftists forget history so they can relive it.
91 posted on 08/11/2003 1:31:04 PM PDT by Bullish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
You are skipping 87.

92 posted on 08/11/2003 1:32:51 PM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Not lawyerlike at all. Let's see, you have tried to compare me to a neocon, to a fascist, and now to a lawyer. Keep throwing stuff out, you may get something to stick if you try long enough!

Good to see you admitted that Reagan's removal of troops did nothing to prevent terrorism.

Now if we could only get you to realize, like most rational people did after 9/11, that terrorism must be actively eradicated...

Anyway, I'm done. Feel free to get as many last words as you want.

93 posted on 08/11/2003 1:33:13 PM PDT by William McKinley (Vote Clinton Off: http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
88 that is.
94 posted on 08/11/2003 1:33:14 PM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
You obviously are not reading carefully. I responded to that above each of your whines that I was ignoring it.

I'm out.

95 posted on 08/11/2003 1:37:11 PM PDT by William McKinley (Vote Clinton Off: http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Reagan's removal of troops neither prevented or encouraged terrorism, but its your claim that the removal of troops encouraged terrorism, no?

9/11 was the result of the CIA and worthless government agencies not being able, like any government agencey, provide a service they have given. Radical Islam was tapped by the CIA to fight the Cold War and later in Kosovo, I doubt you have spent much time looking at the paper trail but its alarming.

The CIA company men must have laughed at their luck that a team of amateurs in the White House were willing to blame the whole thing on Iraq.


Still waiting on Thomas Sowell's poor reading comprehension skills...



96 posted on 08/11/2003 1:38:26 PM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Good commentary from Thomas Sowell on why the neoconservatives don't have much negative to say about Wilson:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030106.shtml
97 posted on 08/11/2003 1:40:07 PM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: danielmryan
His famous (or infamous) "Cross of Gold" speech referred to the same "New York Jews" that seem to have so troubled Harry Truman.

Huh? No it didn't. Bryan had his share of faults but there was no such reference in the "Cross of Gold" speech.

98 posted on 08/11/2003 1:40:40 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
My tag line is a Coolidge quote. Bump.
99 posted on 08/11/2003 2:01:38 PM PDT by Burkeman1 ((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: u-89
There is little question in my mind that had America not been aiding the allies with munitions and loans they would have lost. Even when we entered the war Wilson had no clue how close to defeat the allies were. He didn't even think that American troops would be needed in Europe and that our participation would be mostly naval. The allies had done a good job of hiding how bad things were for them from Wilson and the American public (one of the first British acts of the War was to cut a transatlantic cable from Germany to the United States and then a backup one in Liberia so that news sharply limited from only the allied perspective). Marshal Petain said to Pershing upon his arrival ahead of any troops "I just hope it isn't too late." Pershing was shocked at the military situation from what America had been lead to believe - that the allies were about to win. In March of 1918 before any significant American presence was in Europe- the Germans launched the "Kaiser Battle" which nearly took Paris.
100 posted on 08/11/2003 2:13:45 PM PDT by Burkeman1 ((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-107 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson