Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Leaving aside the broader question of whether Wilson's name should be removed, let's be clear on one thing: Woodrow Wilson was, in fact, a racist pig. He was a racist by current standards, and he was a racist by the standards of the 1910s, a period widely acknowledged by historians as the "nadir" of post–Civil War race relations in the United States.
Against the backdrop of the recent protests by Princeton University students to have Woodrow Wilson's name removed from campus buildings (Wilson was president of Princeton before he was Governor of New Jersey and later POTUS), I found this article about the personal consequences of Wilson's election to the presidency had on one black individual and his family: What Woodrow Wilson Cost My Grandfather. It's all well and good to read and/or discuss the results of historical events in the abstract, but when you put faces and names to the results, those results finally become "real".
Wilson's racism has long been common knowledge among historians, but it seems that the Princeton students may make it common knowledge among the general public. I don't know if Wilson's name should be removed from the Princeton campus, but I do think that we should look at Wilson as he really was and not the Wilson of myth. Somehow Wilson has managed to keep a spotless reputation among the public when, in fact, he committed bigger sins than other Presidents who have been mercilessly raked over the coals. His racism is one sin, but a bigger one, IMO, was his maneuvering the US into WW I.
The KKK were 4 million strong in 1925. It was a different time. It was slightly over 50 years since the civil war so....there's....that......regardless, Wilson was kind of an academic elitist (sound familiar?). He actually thought he could go to a region who had been at each other's throats for centuries and tell those who lost millions.....how to live? Sound familiar?
Aaaaanyway, he came up with The League of Nations...which failed miserably when each country had to compromise. When he bowed to the demands of Fosch and others and took Germany to the woodshed financially, WWII was a virtual certainty. A scant 20 years later, the largest war in world history commenced.
6 years later, 55 million or so were dead globally. That's 55 million with an "M",
And people are worried about his racist views? How about his absolute stupidity handling of post world war I? His handling and subsequent bungling of the League of Nations is still felt today. When the Serbs and Croats went at it during Clinton's term they were simply evening up scores from world war I and their grandfathers deaths.
Wilson's racism? Please, it's a rounding error. One other note, JFK was quoted as saying "it doesn't matter how well blacks do, they will never be rich enough to be my neighbor"......Johnson was no Abe Lincoln despite his stance on civil rights.
Today's young blacks have no concept or appreciation for the racism their grandparents and othe ancestors endured. During those times, the antics seen at Dartmouth would have led them to an end of a rope. Think about it. Until Obama, we were making progress. Now? We have been setback at least 50 years because if his continual division.
Wilson's racism? He was a footnote. Study your history and get back to us. Wilson indirectly caused the death of millions by fanning Germany's flames after the truce/armistice as they were never made to surrender at the end of world war I by demanding them to pay back 300 Billion which simply broke them. Hitler capitalized on the hatred, found a few scapegoats and the rest is history.
The KKK were 4 million strong in 1925. It was a different time. It was slightly over 50 years since the civil war so....there's....that......regardless,
Quote:
Wilson was kind of an academic elitist (sound familiar?).
No not really.
Quote:
He actually thought he could go to a region who had been at each other's throats for centuries and tell those who lost millions.....how to live? Sound familiar?
No not really.
Quote:
he came up with The League of Nations...which failed miserably when each country had to compromise.
Not sure how that was Wilson's failure since the U.S. wasn't a member.
Quote:
When he bowed to the demands of Fosch and others and took Germany to the woodshed financially, WWII was a virtual certainty. A scant 20 years later, the largest war in world history commenced.
Bowed??? The Wilson nor any other U.S. president was in a position to force the French, British or Italians to do anything other than what they did, wreck vengeance on Germany and split the territorial spoils between them.
Quote:
Today's young blacks have no concept or appreciation for the racism their grandparents and othe ancestors endured. During those times, the antics seen at Dartmouth would have led them to an end of a rope. Think about it. Until Obama, we were making progress. Now? We have been setback at least 50 years because if his continual division.
Please reserve such comments for Politics and Controversies because they have no basis in historical fact, just your personal partisan opinion.
Personally, as one of those parents who experienced the bad old days, I find nothing to criticize young folks from continuing the struggle started by my ancestors, grandparents, and parents. Whether the present climate is as bad as the climate that we experienced is irrelevant.
I am a Democrat, but not a fan of Wilson's...however, not so much for the race issue...although that was abhorrent...but as several posters have posited, somewhat still a function of the time, particularly for a Southerner.
My gripe about Wilson -- at least according to the bio I read -- was what I consider to be a terrible flaw in a leader -- believing that his acts were divinely inspired. That's very dangerous.
Not sure how that was Wilson's failure since the U.S. wasn't a member.
Bowed??? The Wilson nor any other U.S. president was in a position to force the French, British or Italians to do anything other than what they did, wreck vengeance on Germany and split the territorial spoils between them.
The failure of Wilson regarding the League of Nations is that he put so much effort to creating it but failed to get his own country into it.
Yes, he was in a position to force the British, French and Italians to do more or less then actually happened at Versailles. The United States had a growing military, a much stronger economy and even the moral authority over the exhausted European counties in 1918-1919. As it was Wilson was able to get Italy to back down over some of their excessive territorial demands (in what is now Croatia and Slovenia), but it just did not go all the way. He compromised too much with the Imperialists to get them to support his precious League of Nations.
So yes he bowed down. One of the big mistakes was not to invite Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey to the peace conference the way that France was invited to the peace conference in 1815. No lasting peace was created, just a victor's diktat. Another "great" Wilson move was recognizing Czech independence, thereby wrecking any chance of reforming Austria and helping to insure that Eastern Europe would be divided into small weak states that were unable to defend themselves against Hitler and Stalin.
I am a Democrat, but not a fan of Wilson's...however, not so much for the race issue...although that was abhorrent...but as several posters have posited, somewhat still a function of the time, particularly for a Southerner.
My gripe about Wilson -- at least according to the bio I read -- was what I consider to be a terrible flaw in a leader -- believing that his acts were divinely inspired. That's very dangerous.
You know, I wonder why other non-western countries aren't into getting rid of any trace of monuments or buildings named after them considering pretty much every country shouldn't have any historic characters on anything if having non-21st century views on things.
Hell, pretty much the entire ME should remove Muhammad anything from stores, names, etc. etc. And Mongolia surely should destroy any statues of Genghis Khan as well. If you go back in time no one is innocent or right, so does that mean no country should ever have any historical figures - many considered heroes? Hell why not just have the UN say that no country should reverre or admire in any way any leader that wasn't born in the 21st century.
I am so sick of this revisionism that seeks to make a countries historical heroes evil. Someone may have done great things but were racist? Well what country on this planet DOESN'T have many historical figures that may have been?
What really down right ****** me off is that these people only go after historical western leaders. They either need to start showing great condemnation for the likes of Genghis Khan and Muhammad, and the like or butt out.
The failure of Wilson regarding the League of Nations is that he put so much effort to creating it but failed to get his own country into it.
That I buy.
Quote:
Yes, he was in a position to force the British, French and Italians to do more or less then actually happened at Versailles. The United States had a growing military, a much stronger economy and even the moral authority over the exhausted European counties in 1918-1919.
Following WWI the U.S. military was doing everything other than growing! The National Defense Act of 1920 authorized the downsizing the Army from a force of over 2 million, to a mere 280,000. Wilson proposed a large scale expansion of the U.S. military but that was shot down by Congress in 1920. So at the end of the war the U.S. had neither the force or the inclination to use any military force to be involved much less influence the former allies to toe the line on any agreement. As for the economy... between 1920-21 the U.S. was in the midst of a sharp deflationary recession. Frankly I think you are confusing the standing of the U.S. in the interwar years with U.S. standing and strength in the post WW2 era.
Additionally, you and others seem to forget that on September 26, 1919 Wilson suffered a severe stroke that left him in a state of unconsciousness by Dec 2nd and while he partially recovered he remained bed ridden until the end of his administration. How Wilson was suppose to brow beat Great Britain and France out of their German induced vengeance with a weakening economy, a skeleton military, and confined to his bead is simply beyond by simple skills of comprehension.
Following WWI the U.S. military was doing everything other than growing! The National Defense Act of 1920 authorized the downsizing the Army from a force of over 2 million, to a mere 280,000. Wilson proposed a large scale expansion of the U.S. military but that was shot down by Congress in 1920. So at the end of the war the U.S. had neither the force or the inclination to use any military force to be involved much less influence the former allies to toe the line on any agreement. As for the economy... between 1920-21 the U.S. was in the midst of a sharp deflationary recession. Frankly I think you are confusing the standing of the U.S. in the interwar years with U.S. standing and strength in the post WW2 era.
Additionally, you and others seem to forget that on September 26, 1919 Wilson suffered a severe stroke that left him in a state of unconsciousness by Dec 2nd and while he partially recovered he remained bed ridden until the end of his administration. How Wilson was suppose to brow beat Great Britain and France out of their German induced vengeance with a weakening economy, a skeleton military, and confined to his bead is simply beyond by simple skills of comprehension.
So were the British and the French. And both were exhausted, especially financial. In addition, the United States just proved it could create a large army. And it was engaged in a battleship building naval race with the British at the time until the Washington Naval Conference. For the first time, the British accepted naval equality with another country, the United States. Although, it did not come into full force until WW2, the Allies could already see the huge potential of the Americans. Wilson did not use that potential to its full advantage.
Your last paragraph is immaterial because the Versailles treaty was already done by the September 1919. The damage had already occurred between Nov 1918 and June 1919 (when Germany was finally able to sign the treaty), when the Central Powers were not invited to the Peace Conference, the Allies sat around like vultures dividing territories and the British blockade against food continued even though the war was over. Worse of all, the treaty was considered unfair and angered the Germans but did not really weaken them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
