Theodore Roosevelt, WoodrowWilson and the League of Nations

[tigereye]

My son is fascinated by presidents and he has a special fondness for Theodore Roosevelt. We were just discussing the differences between the two, and oddly enough, he encouraged me by his curiosity to read more about the League of Nations, the differences and similarities between TR and Wilson, and the effect the election of 1912 and subsequent events had on the future of Europe, what the League of Nations would mean and fail to mean, and possibly the development of the Second World War.

I bring this up partly because I think it is so cool that my kid can talk to me about politics and history!
(he's 10) and also because the book referenced in the link really has relevance to current presidential politics and the development of greater presidential power as opposed to congressional power. ( a problem we seem to have today.) To wit, snip... "Roosevelt was particularly an apostle of progressive idealism, which he called "the new nationalism" and described as "using the executive power as a steward of public welfare." Roosevelt really, and later Wilson, invented the modern presidency, because between Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt the Congress was by far the strongest part of government. Roosevelt used all the wiles of executive power and agreements and orders."

Here's the link to a discussion about the book, fascinating to anyone who loves presidential history and it's effects on the present.

http://www.cceia.org/viewMedia.php/prmID/5029

[Che_Nuevara]

1. TR was just plain a baller.

No two ways about it. The man was pimp.

[tigereye]

2. no, the point is that he was much more complicated than that

and we may partially have him AND Wilson to thank for * having too much power.

[Che_Nuevara]

5. I meant as a human being,

not as a President.

[tigereye]

8. I guess I don't know what you mean

he seems to have been a fascinating human being, even if folks didn't really like what he did.

how about some more explanation?

[Che_Nuevara]

11. The guy had a pair the size of apples.

If nothing else, you have to respect his gall.


That's all I meant.

[tigereye]

20. that does seem to be true

I don't think that they say it that way in my kid's books, though. ;)

he was pretty gutsy, yeah.

[RandomKoolzip]

3. When I was kid, I was fascinated by the presidents, too...

The earliest ones, especially. I loved reading about Madison and Adams and Jefferson, for some reason.

I wasn't aware of Roosevelt's overriding of Congress. There was a massive bio of TR that came out a few years ago that I've threatened to buy on many an occasion. This post may have pushed me over the edge, cuz now I'm curious....

:hi:

[tigereye]

4. I was too!

I used to play a game called Mr. President in high school, where we mostly spewed out a lot of facts. But my son seems to have a much better grasp on what they actually did, than I did at his age. (I'm so proud)

It's so cool to look back at how smart and complex many of them were. The article noted that Teddy was one of the most intellctual presidents since the FOunders - that he took 80 books with him to read on safari! Wow.

It is also neat to think about how what they did influenced later policies and pres. power. :hi:

[Che_Nuevara]

6. When I was about 10 I learned that Jefferson had slaves,

and that just about ended my fascination with the presidents.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. Don't know if I would for that sole reason

How conspicuous were abolitionist ideas at that time? Did he participate in any kind of debate about the subject?

[Che_Nuevara]

9. And I quote:

*ahem* ...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." - Thomas Jefferson

[tigereye]

14. sadly at that time, I do not think that they thought of their slaves

as "men" in that sense. And we used to think of children and women as "property" also until not so recently.

:(

However, I am not of the belief that great ideas are negated by actions that were common in that time, that we would now find reprehensible.

[Che_Nuevara]

15. I am :)

Like I said below, the Iraq War was popular in 2003.

[tigereye]

22. but

(for the sake of argument - I love playing devil's advocate), do you think that any person with those beliefs can only be viewed in light of their racism? Does that negate everything else they did? Comparable to Hitler, for instance, or somewhat less than that? I realize that isn't the best comparison on my part, but more of a slippery slope, I guess.


I don't think the analogy of the current war is the best one, since many people do not support it. I also don't think the war is a "prevailing attitude", as beliefs about slavery might have been in the Revolutionary period. However, I am not a sociologist, so I don't know what percentage of the people at that time saw slavery as a "norm." I agree that just because something is supported by many does not make it right, and there are always those who are able to see right and wrong more clearly and rise above the attitudes of the time.


I guess I need to read some books by Henry Louis Gates and Cornell West on this subject and see how they view it.

:)

[Che_Nuevara]

23. Thank you.

"I agree that just because something is supported by many does not make it right, and there are always those who are able to see right and wrong more clearly and rise above the attitudes of the time."

That is exactly what I meant.

[tigereye]

10. but many people at that time had slaves

oddly enough, a lot of the founders had slaves and at the same time were intellectually opposed to the idea.

weird, I know.

Oddly enough, one of the few founders and signers of the Constitution who was opposed to slavery and actually didn't own slaves was George Mason, the namesake of the recent NCAA basketball team.

[Che_Nuevara]

13. Yes, and that's why George Mason was awesome.

Many people supported the War in Iraq, too. That doesn't make it okay.

"The Ideas of the Times" is, in my opinion, NEVER a legitimate excuse.

[tigereye]

16. I'm not saying it's an excuse

I'm saying that we can't view all actions through the template of more enlightened times. The Greeks and Romans had slaves too, but that didn't stop them from developing a structurally sophisticated ( at least on some levels)
type of government. It doesn't entirely negate what they accomplished, in the same sense that Dicken's terrible behavior to his wives and children negates his writing ability.


some of the founders and other world leaders of the time were much more enlightened on the subject of slavery in any form.

[Che_Nuevara]

17. The Greeks and Romans had slaves

in a very different way than the way in which Europeans / Americans had slaves.

Roman/Greek slaves were prisoners of war.
There was no birth clause. The children of slaves were automatically given citizenship in the city in which they were born.
Slaves could, under some circumstances, buy freedom.

Also, I'm criticising the hypocrisy of the situation, not the moral values in a vaccum. Of course Dickens' being a sh*thead has no bearing on his writing -- the two have nothing to do with each other. And the Roman/Greek slave issue does not deny their structural sophistication, because they never claimed that they had an egalitarian society. But Jeffers said that "All men are created equally" and used men as slaves to stay fabulously rich. He was a f*cking hypocrite, hands down.

[sweetheart]

12. Make sure he gets some truth about wilson

That racist man was one of the most draconian evil presidents before bush.

maybe a gift of "lies my teacher told me" for a christmas gift.

[tigereye]

19. the article seems pretty clear about that

"Wilson was a white supremacist who allowed the re-segregation of the federal bureaucracy in Washington after he became president" I did not know he was a conservative Southerner Democrat as well. BUt at the same time he favored peaceful solutions to problems in Europe.

and ironically the radical Republicans of Andrew Johnson's time were very much in favor of freed slaves getting the vote while Johnson, a Tennesse Democrat who had supported the North, Vetoed this law.

[arwalden]

18. I Was Always Fascinated With The First Ladies...

... go figure.

[tigereye]

21. so who's your favorite?

mmm, let me think....


Jackie or Dolley or Mrs. Roosevelt? ;)

[Che_Nuevara]

24. -10 pts for E. Roosevelt.

You can do better than that.

[tigereye]

26. one of the most sophisticated and aware women of the time

what's the issue?

clearly I am not as informed as I should be. You have to remember we shiksas were raised with her and I suppose (despite being shiksas) Emma Goldman, Golda Meier, and then Gloria Steinem as our role models. ;)

[Che_Nuevara]

28. Nothing's wrong with Eleanor Roosevelt -per se- ...

but saying she's your favorite first lady is kind of like saying that "Hotel California" is your favorite song. I'm just sayin be a little creative.

[tigereye]

29. there were certainly a lot of interesting first ladies

but I do think she's worth a nod just for her perspicacity. A lot of em were pretty feisty, though.

all right, who would yours be? ;)

[Che_Nuevara]

30. Rosalynn Carter (n/t)

[tigereye]

32. good point

[arwalden]

25. Stop It!

Get out of my head!

[tigereye]

27. you are funny, aw.

seriously, don't you have a favorite?

[alvarezadams]

31. On Teddy and Woody

I agree that it's great to be able to speak of history with your kid - keep it up!

As for comparing the arly 20th century and today it is important to put things into context. Teddy (and indeed Woody) changed over the years quite a bit and their respective understanding of the world was influenced by their political environment.

Teddy began as a jingoistic conservative. The Mugwump "revolution" split the GOP - which had begun as a liberal party - and moved it to the right while the country was sick to death of the excesses and corruption of the Gilded Age. Thus Teddy provides something of a schizophrenic image to historians - it's not from the Rough Rider of San Juan Hill that we would expect a trust-buster, and it isn't from the imperialist in Columbia/Panama that we should find a defender of dissent:

""To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.""
Theodore Roosevelt

Woody was also a bit of a conundrum. The first potus from the defeated Confederacy and a Princeton intellectual, he began as a political pragmatist and ended up an enlightened idealist (war does that to intelligent people, no?). His "14 Points" of Versailles was a landmark document that has been applied - and excoriated - by liberal and conservative administrations to this very day (depending on "expediency", of course).

Yet both - despite some progressive ideas - were markedly anti-Red to the point of abuse. Both mark an ugly chapter in our history, only made uglier by the Republican rejection of internationalism and the conservative embracing of Hitler and Mussolini right up to Glassnocht (and for some, even beyond that fateful date).

Were either particularly important in making the executive more powerful? I think that Andrew Jackson and Lincoln did exponentially more to increase the power of the executive. FDR certainly did more than either in this respect... as did Nixon and Reagan and Dubya. Ultimately the union of the executive and the legislative will strengthen the former, especially in times of war or severe strain.

I too am intrigued by both personalities - but my admiration is mixed with a certain repulsion. But then again I'm applying my own subjective values - which are based on what might be called social libertarianism.

[Che_Nuevara]

33. Just for the sake of accuracy,

the German term for "Night of the Broken Glass", as we tend to call it, is actually "Kristallnacht", which translates to "crystal night". They don't call it "glass night" aka "Glasnacht".

[alvarezadams]

34. Thanx

I live abroad and don't use English as much as I'd like to - blame it on translationese!

[kskiska]

35. Read "Dark Horse" about James Garfield

and how his death wasn't exactly caused by a "disgruntled office seeker," but involved intra-party intrigue, and was in fact, a political assassination geared to replace Garfield with another Republican of a rival faction.

Another good one is John Dean's book on Warren Harding. Dean grew up in Harding's home town.

[Zomby Woof]

36. Your child will go far

His intellectual curiosity and comfort with exploring and dissecting history will serve him well. He shows all the signs of being a creative and independent thinker. :thumbsup:

I have had a lifelong fascination with the presidency since I was 6 and first pored over the portraits in the World Book "President of the United States" article. I would point to each picture, from Washington to Nixon, and ask my Mom, "Was he a good president?" "Was he any good?"

I have no idea what prompted me to ask about their qualities, other than maybe Watergate hanging heavy in the air and knowing on some level that something was wrong with the man on TV with the jowls, crazed eyes, and perpetual five o'clock shadow.

My fascination has not faded, even as middle age nears. I still read voraciously about the presidents, always assessing and re-assessing their legacies.

If he has not done so, I recommend your child read the two volumes by Henry Adams covering the administrations of Jefferson and Madison. TR hated Jefferson, largely due to what he learned from reading those works.

And for added color and contrast, see if he can find Gore Vidal's essay, "Theodore Roosevelt: American Sissy."