You decry the "great man" image of wilson, but then cite Debbs, another "great man" who was never put to the test of leadership like Wilson. He probably had antiquated views on a host of issues, too (do you think he supported LGBT equality?)
I could follow suit on your discourse and ask what your views are of John F. Kennedy, another white president who didn't quite live up to expectations on race issues, and left the large battles to be fought by Johnson. JFK had questionable attitudes about women. He also helped author boundary lines and redrew the maps in questionable ways, like in Berlin & Vietnam; the only difference is that he did it to supposedly fight communism. Should we enact this level of scrutiny to his legacy, as well, or Lincoln (didn't support paying AA troops as much as whites) or Carter (a dixiecrat). Wilson's legacy rests on what he accomplished based on where the status quo was at the time & the ideas he had that were enacted by FDR & others. Surely it's better to view the full spectrum of advances he made, via his economic policies & financial reforms, and not merely his reaction to a motion picture that at the time everyone was going to see (it was the first "blockbuster;" unlikely he would have panned it)
We only know about people like Debbs b/c of their legacies as activists and organizers. We don't know what the hay kind of President he would have been. To rest everything about Wilson's record as President on his reaction to Birth of a Nation is just as weak as summing of Bill Clinton b/c of doma.
= new reply since forum marked as read
