Replies

I don't think we disagree about New Deal historiography. By "a simple story of good and evil," I meant a simple, "black and white" "story of good versus evil." Anything else, anything that took in more complexity or ambiguity wouldn't be so simple. That was the point I was trying to make.

But about TR: his invitation of Booker T. Washington to the White House certainly was a high point in recognition of African Americans in his admittedly prejudiced era. TR also spoke out strongly against lynching. His treatment of Black soldiers in Texas was wrong and counterproductive, as were his racial views in general, but was he truly worse on race than were his predecessors?

You may remember a thread in the past few years criticizing current Presidential advisor Karl Rove's hero McKinley for abandoning the civil rights cause. I didn't buy that either, but I do think that the turn away from African American rights was continuous. I don't think there was less concern for civil rights under TR than under McKinley, because there was so little interest in Blacks in general. Nor was there more interest in African-Americans under Harrison's Presidency, though some Congressmen kept up the fight. You'd have to produce evidence to convince me that McKinley or Harrison was better for Blacks than Roosevelt.

Roosevelt's expressed racial views may lead to his being taken as more racist than preceding or following Presidents. He did believe in race, and he left a paper trail, though what race meant to him is open to question. It definitely did include color, but wasn't restricted to it. Roosevelt, though, came out of the ethnically more complex politics of New York and this did provide a place for African-Americans.

As to his using Negroes as a means, I'm not sure this differs from earlier or later practice. Roosevelt was certainly aware of the problems African-Americans faced in the political world. If his New York background helped TR to understand the politics of the melting pot, his Georgia ancestry meant that he had a long way to go to come to terms with Black aspirations. He certainly went further in that direction than Wilson. I'm not convinced that McKinley, a former Union officer, went further.

You may remember a thread in the past few years criticizing current Presidential advisor Karl Rove's hero McKinley for abandoning the civil rights cause. I didn't buy that either, but I do think that the turn away from African American rights was continuous. I don't think there was less concern for civil rights under TR than under McKinley, because there was so little interest in Blacks in general. Nor was there more interest in African-Americans under Harrison's Presidency, though some Congressmen kept up the fight. You'd have to produce evidence to convince me that McKinley or Harrison was better for Blacks than Roosevelt.

Thanks for remembering my thread on McKinley.

I've been doing more research on this lately, and it might be enlightening to restart the question.

Cheers,

Richard F.

Oh, hell. A friend pinged me over to an immigration thread, and I got caught up in a brawl. Gallons of whiskey last night didn't help either. I ended up saying I'm Mexican. Maybe I really was at that point... I hate to lie here at FR, and I think this was the first time. Not a lie, exactly, as I was just being an ass, but a lie nonetheless. The results were fun, however.

I owe you a good response to this post. I think I was reading too much into some of your comments. Still, on TR, I am concerned. Perhaps I've defined my definition of him by his last two years in office, but he did, too. Do you know about the Crum affair? Crum was a black TR appointed to Customs Collector in SC. I think he first did it in 1905, but I'm not sure, could have been earlier.

Did you read me correctly? A black customs collector at Charleston!

TR's motivation was not to elevate Crum. He was sticking Crum in Pitchfork Ben's eye (SC Senator, folks). TR carried it out all the way to his last week in office, even though he said before that he wouldn't play those games after the 1908 election. That was not constructive racial politics. It was race baiting of the lowest order, and it smacked of the worst of Reconstruction.

Taft got Crum to resign, and moved him to someplace more appropriate. The difference between eleveting the black and using him was slight in those days. Taft was definitely more honest about it than TR.

I don't know about McKinley. I haven't gotten into his papers, and his biographies don't get much into it. McKinley started the end of Republican racial politics, however, with his rapprochement to Southern whites. This was not anti-black. It was an amazing gesture. I think TR thought he was doing the same. I know Taft did. I'd be interested to know more about McKinley and blacks.

I know an historian (historiette?) who can answer this question. I'll send her a note.

I haven't gotten to your links. Will do next. Thanks.