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

What I'm wondering is:

  1. Why don't these facts appear in the mainstream textbooks, even as an "Alternate Point of View";
  2. And why is it that a bunch of conservative Internet renegades (some Canadian) seem to be the only ones bringing these things up?

As far as the cover-ups are concerned, the only opinion I can advance is that professional intellectuals, despite the political positions they undertake, always have a Toryish streak to them. (To be fair, the standards of their trade contain a bias towards Toryishness.)

1 posted on 08/11/2003 7:17:06 AM PDT by danielmryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last
To: danielmryan
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.
Bryan was a wuss. My namesake even beat his butt without leaving his own patio.
2 posted on 08/11/2003 7:23:01 AM PDT by William McKinley (Vote Clinton Off: http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: danielmryan
Why?

Because Wilsonianism is a major part of Internationalist Conservatism or neoconservatism so he is a bit of hero in some part of the Right.


I'd suggest Tom Fleming's recently released Illusions of Victory for an excellent debunking of the Wilson era.


The author also could have added direct election of Senators, and the war on some drugs all began under his reign.
3 posted on 08/11/2003 7:24:30 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: danielmryan
Not to mentioned that the 16th (Income Tax), 17th (Senators elected by popular vote), and 18th (Prohibition) Amendments were all ratified under his administration.
5 posted on 08/11/2003 7:35:24 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: danielmryan
By the way- on my blog I am doing a "Presidential Survivor" type of game. The end result will be, after about a year, a ranking of the Presidents from worst to first. Wilson was the second one voted off (after LBJ, with both being cast out the first time they appeared). As such, Wilson is in the running for the worst President ever.

It looks like Slick Willie will be the third voted off.

6 posted on 08/11/2003 7:35:26 AM PDT by William McKinley (Vote Clinton Off: http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: danielmryan
For me, no way could Wilson have been worse than the treasonous Clinton.
7 posted on 08/11/2003 7:36:48 AM PDT by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: danielmryan
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.

Is that supposed to be sarcasm?

14 posted on 08/11/2003 7:49:29 AM PDT by eyespysomething (You've a loose screw. Can I tighten that for you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: danielmryan
I am convinced that the *only* reason that Wilson inevitably appears in lists of the "ten best Presidents" is that the lists are drawn up by history professors.

Woodrow Wilson was not the first historian elected President (Teddy Roosevelt was), but Wilson was the first *history professor* that became President. So, the next time you see a list of Presidents with Wilson near the top, rather than the bottom, just remember. He is only there because of professional courtesy.
16 posted on 08/11/2003 7:52:06 AM PDT by No Truce With Kings (The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: danielmryan; jmc813; *Wod_list
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.

I presume that the author is being sarcastic - the income tax was the beginning of the Imperial Federal Government. And the 17th Amendment, also enacted during the Wilson years (which changed the way U.S. Senators assumed power from being appointed by state legislatures to a popular election), was the last nail in the coffin for state's rights.

But probably the biggest blows to liberty during the Wilson Administration were the first successful movements to enact national prohibition laws: the Harrison Narcotics Act, passed in 1914, and growing power of the so-called temperance movement which led to the 18th (Prohibition) Amendment which was passed the year after Wilson left office. The fallout from these doomed attempts to defy human nature started the greatest crime wave in American history in the 1920's, and contributed to the destruction of the American inner cities and the corruption of several generations of minority youth.

Yes, the author is correct: Wilson was the Very Worst President of the United States - even worse than Clinton.

17 posted on 08/11/2003 7:55:28 AM PDT by bassmaner (Let's take back the word "liberal" from the commies!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: danielmryan
Well, most professional historians have a somewhat more nuanced view of Wilson than the usual adulatory stuff you see in high school textbooks.

I happen to agree with the author of this piece that Wilson was one of our very worst presidents. My reasons are many and varied, from his foreign policy (not really neutral in WWI from the beginning) to his propaganda campaign during WWI, the 1919 Red Scare excesses against civil liberties, his championship of the income tax, the Federal reserve, and, of course, the extreme Southern bigotry of his views, although as one descended from Southerners I hardly take a pro-Radical Reconstruction view of the period.

Curiously, my dislike of Wilson was actually formed reading the major ostensibly favorable multivolume biography by Leuchtenberg. One of the best short takes on Wilson is a little known (today) book by Sigmund Freud and Thomas Bullit titled Thomas Woodrow Wilson, in which the father of psychoanaltic frummery describes the psyche of "Little Tommy Wilson". It really is a must read for conservatives.

A couple of notes on the article: Wilson did appoint William Jennings Bryan as secretary of state, but the two never got along: Wilson was a psuedo-aristocrat, former president of Princeton, and Bryan a populist, though by no means a stupid or uneducated man. I mentioned above that Wilson was not really neutral during WWI, conspiring essentially with Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary, (through is emmissary, Col. House, who pretty much described the whole thing in his memoirs) to tilt American 'neutrality' against the Central Powers and towards the Brits. Bryan, an honest patriot even if a fundamentalist mountebank in many respects, was appalled and, in what I have elsewhere described as the one principled act of his entire life, resigned as secretary of state in 1915 over the matter.

Wilson was also heavily under the influence of his wife, who was practically running the government after his stroke. Wilson's insistance that the US Senate accept the League of Nations "as is" ensured its rejection and failure.

Moreover, Wilson's whole vision of the post WWI world, the Fourteen Points, and the entire performance of the American delegation at the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919, which resulted in the infamous Treaty of Versailles, has been heavily critiziced by diplomatic historians. The classic which everyone should read on this is Peacemaking 1919 by Sir Harold Nicholson, who was a member of the British delegation. Wilson's lack of preparation was astonishing, and was a major factor in the disaster that ensued. I don't know if the book is still read, but when I was a graduate student in European history, it was one of those books you had to know, rather like Fritz Fischer's Germany's Aims in the First World War (Griff nach der Weltmacht in German)

20 posted on 08/11/2003 8:07:35 AM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo [Gallia][Germania][Arabia] Esse Delendam --- Select One or More as needed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: danielmryan
Had Hughes won, a hundred million or so lives would have been saved.

A future historian might possibly say the same thing about George Herbert Walker Bush in 80 years. The legacy of clinton is yet to be finally written in blood, much of it probably American.

25 posted on 08/11/2003 8:19:21 AM PDT by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: danielmryan
What I'm wondering is:

1. Why don't these facts appear in the mainstream textbooks, even as an "Alternate Point of View";

2. And why is it that a bunch of conservative Internet renegades (some Canadian) seem to be the only ones bringing these things up?

Maybe because they're not really as "factual" as this author would have us believe? Not that Wilson was any great shakes -- his mistakes are well documented -- but this "analysis" is far too simplistic.

The article is also misinformed: Japan was not a "one of the major allied powers." They sent a very modest number of troops to Europe, a few ships to the Mediterranean, and harassed the Germans in China.

Why would the author make such a claim? Apparently to lay the blame for Pearl Harbor at Wilson's feet -- a rather arrogant assumption that excludes Japanese imperialism. (Unless the author would like to blame Japan's invasion of China on Wilson, too....)

26 posted on 08/11/2003 8:20:29 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: danielmryan
I'M SORRY BUT THIS GUY WAS THE WORST!

 


27 posted on 08/11/2003 8:24:58 AM PDT by GunnyHartman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: danielmryan
Had Hughes won, a hundred million or so lives would have been saved.

Bullsh!t. It's likely that we'd have ended up in WWI regardless of who won in 1916. And it's also likely that American post-war foreign policy wouldn't have been too much different from what it turned out to be (i.e., isolationist).

And of course, there's the fallacious reasoning that only American influences led to the rise of Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and Japanese Imperialism, and the second World War that resulted from these expansionist regimes.

30 posted on 08/11/2003 8:32:20 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: danielmryan
"What I'm wondering is:

Why don't these facts appear in the mainstream textbooks, even as an "Alternate Point of View";
And why is it that a bunch of conservative Internet renegades (some Canadian) seem to be the only ones bringing these things up?"

These things never show up because the liberal left has created an historical fiction of the U.S. and Wilson, that racist, elitist naive lying idiot, is, like FDR, one of their icons.

The reason these facts appear on the Internet is because it takes a certain level of intelligence, sophistication and personal success to be able to use the internet, and also because the internet is refreshingly free of control by the liberal mind-police who run the main stream media.
35 posted on 08/11/2003 8:34:06 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: danielmryan
The Very Worst President of the United States...

was undoubtedly one Lyndon Baines Johnson.

43 posted on 08/11/2003 9:09:57 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: danielmryan
It takes some effort to figure that Woodrow Wilson was a worse president than, say, Harding or Coolidge.
44 posted on 08/11/2003 9:20:27 AM PDT by DonQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: danielmryan
Why don't these facts appear in the mainstream textbooks, even as an "Alternate Point of View";

Because textbooks are NEA propoganda, and little else.

51 posted on 08/11/2003 9:41:35 AM PDT by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: danielmryan
later
55 posted on 08/11/2003 9:52:09 AM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: danielmryan
b
59 posted on 08/11/2003 10:03:33 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: danielmryan
"Who was the very worst American president"?

Lying Under Oath as President ~ Lying Under Oath in a Deposition ~ Lying Under Oath to a Grand Jury ~ Lying Under Oath as a Lawyer ~ Abuse of Power ~ Obstruction of Justice ~ Deriliction of Duty ~ Bribe Solicitation ~ Corruption ~ Graft ~ Coersion ~ False Swearing ~ Malfeasance of Office ~ Perjury ~ Subornation of Perjury---I humbly submit that Bill and Hillary Clinton were the worst Co-Presidents this country has ever had to endure.

61 posted on 08/11/2003 10:06:41 AM PDT by Pagey (Hillary Rotten is a Smug, Holier - Than - Thou Socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

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