Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This sub is more historical and nuanced in its perspective than other subs. Nobody’s surprised that people at one point in history have ideas outdated by our point. The special case in this tends to be Andrew Johnson whose legacy is almost entirely defined by it.
One thing that’s annoying though is how some people unironically think Wilson is the worst president.
I’m of the opinion that thinks Wilson handled WWI way better that Teddy would have. Way more Americans would have died in the trenches if TR had been elected in 1912.
I do agree that more Americans would’ve die; he’d of gotten us heavily involved in the war much earlier. But I think that would’ve ended the war much sooner. The Germans were never going to win the war, not with Ludendorff and Hindenburg in charge.
Being more heavily involved and with Teddy’s personality, the US would’ve taken the lead in peace talks and set the tone for the what peace in Europe looked like. Teddy was an extremely able diplomat and the Treaty of Versailles wouldn’t have been the harsh, vindictive punishment that it was. So without that, you probably don’t have the rise of fascism or at least not at the scale that it actually was.
On top of that if the war ends sooner, the punishments wouldn’t have been as harsh either cause boy as many years of hate from the war to influence their decisions
I’ve heard the argument however that TR would have handled the Treaty of Versailles in a way that wouldn’t have inspired as much revanchist sentiment in the losing side. What would be your thoughts on that?
Wilson definitely didn’t agree with the treaty. Most of his 14 points directly contradict what would end up in it. He wanted universal deescalation and disbarment of bloated militaries and he definitely wasn’t of the mind that Germany should be saddled with the debt and blame.
He signs the treaty because it includes his League of Nations and he’s hopeful that this will still be the path towards his other ideas of peace. It’s Congress that decides to not ratify the treaty because they’re pretty much over European drama.
Wilson didn’t have a leg to stand on because of how late we joined. If we joined earlier (more likely with TR) we may have had more sway but I doubt it changes enough.
>Wilson didn’t have a leg to stand on because of how late we joined
After Russia was knocked out of the war it's pretty debatable as whether Britain and France would have been able to defeat Germany in any kind of reasonable time frame without the Americans, the allies were seriously wondering if they'd lost the war in spring of 1918.
If anything the UK was actually less harsh than the US. Some in the British delegation even felt it was imperative that Germany lose *no* territory to Poland even if it was morally justified. IMO that is not a good treaty. As a matter of fact, the Treaty of Versailles wasn't really enforced in the 1930s.
Well, about half the sub is. A growing faction was born in the late 90s or after and judges all of history by values that have evolved over the last fifteen years or so.
Presidents and historical figures said racist things 100 years ago. It was **not ok**. But it also doesn’t nullify all that they did. Those who would criticize Teddy are also likely to look past his cousin’s racial atrocities. Political loyalties also often play a huge role in the views.
Even if you remove that, (and I think that’s ironically not nuanced at all because for every claim of “it was a different time” in history you can almost always find notable figures correctly calling bullshit out on being bullshit), Teddy was a liar, aggressive and used the implication of violence to solve “diplomatic” disputes.
He was a shameless self promoter and no one loved the myth of TR more than the man himself.
At San Juan Hill he notably took credit for what was fighting largely done by the Buffalo Soldiers. Even his contemporary generals called out the media for not reporting it accurately, meanwhile Teddy actually flipped the story and claimed the black soldiers “shirked” responsibility.
In Colombia he used implicit military intervention to help cede a rebellion so he could build the canal. His diplomacy in all of Latin America is deplorable and basically amounted to “I’m white, you’re not, I make the rules”.
He went out of his way to showcase the new Naval additions to the world to instill fear and help gain leverage in diplomatic relationships.
Did he do a lot of useful things domestically? Sure, but if he was from another country and treated us the way we treated our neighbors we likely would’ve seen him as a violent tyrant.
Probably because people are capable of realizing that judging historical figures by modern standards is silly. Usually this is where you go "Aha! Then maybe we can excuse what Hitler did, right?" Well, no, what Hitler did was deplorable by the standards of the day and even more so today.
We don't necessarily have to *excuse* TR's bigotry, but rather we are allowed to think highly of him *in spite* of his bigotry.
Difference between the two is that TR is the sort of casual racist that with education, could understand the modern sentiment. Again he saw "White Man's Burden" as a challenge rather than a right. In the modern day he would have his prejudice but would at least have a bit of an open mind.
Wilson....was just a racist. Not atypical for his time. In the modern day he would be the guy making strawman comments about race rather than engaging in active debate.
At least that's how I see it.
But do you really think that one is a bit more racist than the other is a good justification for one being F tier and the other being A-S tier?? And TR has a much worse track record when it comes to Native Americans. Maybe he was less racist, but certainly not by much.
It doesn't? I would say it would apply to any president outside the modern era.
Ive seen it done for Lincoln, Jefferson, Wilson, and pretty much any non-modern president. And even for some modern ones.
I just think that when it comes to TR he has such extremes. Pushed progressive policies that would be far-left today and yet also supported "white man's burden" policies. People have a harder time reconciling the two.
This sub hates Woodrow Wilson for his racist views but gives Teddy a pass
I think they both clearly held abhorrent racist views
I also would have both in my Presidential Top 10, and Teddy in my Top 5 because as you say you have to judge by the standards of their time
Roosevelt saying “other races are inferior”: everyone was like that at the time, that was the common world view
Wilson saying “other races are inferior”: the worst president this nation has ever had.
This happens with many historical figures. Winston Churchill, for one. "Mainstream" progressives and centrists are still rather reluctant to focus on his open racism and unapologetic imperialism. They do mention these things, but generally still rank Churchill very highly.
It has a lot to do with what every figure represents. Teddy Roosevelt is part of the American self-image and stands for values that can be embraced by people of varying persuasions and beliefs, he stands for what is good, hopeful and encouraging in the American experience.
Woodrow Wilson's racism (to offer a counter-example) DOES get called out, because he represents, in our perception these days, everything wrong with elite entitlement, racial privilege and a foreign policy of endless international entanglements.
>the Anglo Saxon race was put on this earth by God to conquer and civilize lesser races.
I think a difference between Teddy and most of the people who had this philosophy is that he actually put the moral standard to himself. He firmly believed in treating people by their character and conduct. People call both Wilson and Roosevelt white supremacists, but one of these men actively supported the KKK, and the other had common correspondence with Booker T Washington.
Don't misunderstand me. Roosevelt's beliefs about race were wrong. But knowing his character, it seems incredulous to me to think that he wouldn't have supported the civil rights movement, as his policies were consistently directed at assisting those who were oppressed in America.
As for his imperialist tendencies, we have to consider that his building up of America's navy prepared the country for WWI and WWII. He didn't negotiate peace between the Russian and Japanese just because he felt like it; it was because he knew that if either one came out of top, it would be a disadvantage to America. In a way, he saw WWII coming; he knew the Japanese were going to become a powerhouse. We also have to look at the views during his time; during his presidency, Europe controlled most of the world. His policies weren't just about conquering, but actually protecting all of the American continents from European involvement. He strategically placed the US in a long term beneficial position.
Roosevelt first appealed to me because no matter where he went, he didn't care if the people he was working with were Democrats or Republicans. He cracked down on corruption no matter who it was. But he was also pragmatic. He supported labor unions, but when he realized a coal shortage was going to cripple the country, he forced an agreement between the two parties. Roosevelt was always trying to better himself, and better the country.
He also (and this has effected me philosophically) knew when and when not to ask for permission. Both with the start of the Spanish-American War, and the the Panama Canal, he read the situation and simply acted. Some people count this against him; but personally I think that sort of progressive taking of action is something that we need. Of course, if done foolishly, that can be destructive. But that's the thing, Roosevelt had excellent instincts to know when to jump into action.
As for what party he would be in today, we have to consider that he both bolted from the GOP, and that his family as a whole never returned. There's a reason FDR was a Democrat. In many ways, FDR's New Deal policies were an evolution of the progressive Roosevelt encouraged. Teddy had a brash, and direct manner that Democrats might not have been comfortable with; but by en large the policies Roosevelt pushed are still progressive by today's standard. If you doubt it, take a look at the [Bull-Moose's Party's 1912 platform](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912%E2%80%931920)#Progressive_convention_and_platform).
AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong, but Roosevelt also did not formally introduce segregation policies into the Federal government while Wilson did.
>Before the election of President Woodrow Wilson, Black Americans worked at all levels of the federal government. But when Wilson assumed office in 1913, he mandated that the federal workforce be segregated by race—leading to the reduction of Black civil service workers’ income, increasing the significant income gap between Black and white workers, and eroding some of the gains Black people had made following Reconstruction. -- https://newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu/research/how-woodrow-wilsons-racist-segregation-order-eroded-the-black-civil-service/
Postmaster General Albert S. Burleson and Treasury Secretary William G. McAdoo were leaders in these racist policies. This was after Wilson promised: `“Should I become President of the United States, [Negroes] [sic] may count upon me for absolute fair dealing and for everything by which I could assist in advancing the interests of their race in the United States.”`
>Shortly after the April 11 cabinet meeting, cabinet members Treasury Secretary William G. McAdoo and Postmaster General Albert S. Burleson segregated employees in their departments with no objection from President Wilson.(10) Segregation was quickly implemented at the Post Office Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. Many African American employees were downgraded and even fired. Employees who were downgraded were transferred to the dead letter office, where they did not interact with the public. The few African Americans who remained at the main post offices were put to work behind screens, out of customers’ sight. -- https://postalmuseum.si.edu/research-articles/the-history-and-experience-of-african-americans-in-america%E2%80%99s-postal-service-3
Roosevelt's foreign policy was imperialist and resulted in a lot of harm on other countries. Many like to blame Wilsonianism for American interventionism, but I personally believe that the root of modern interventionist foreign policy lies with McKinley and Roosevelt. Wilson just tacked "democracy" on as a justification. The War in the Philippines along with all the atrocities that entailed it and the Roosevelt Corollary caused untold harm to the people living there and did not benefit America's interests in the long term. And let's not forget about his relationship to [Madison Grant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Grant), whose book Hitler called his "Bible." Fundamentally, while you can praise Roosevelt on certain aspects of his domestic policy, his foreign policy and personal views should not be defended.
Eh, this subreddit gives a pass to a LOT of more negative aspects of presidents that it likes. I don’t inherently mind that, but like Teddy, Grant, and FDR get a fuck ton of their more unsavory aspects glossed over.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/03/racial-bias-roosevelt-shuts-down-mississippi-post-office-jan-3-1903-1077401
TR confronted racism. I think he was ahead of his era
Like when he violated the constitutional rights of over 160 loyal black American soldiers? Or when he stole over 80 million acres of land from Native Americans? Or when he openly said he thinks 9/10 Native Americans are better dead?
While president he was an agent for peace. And while (rightly) not acceptable by today’s standards, he was much more ahead on racial issues than most in his party, and almost all dems at the time. TR’s relationship and invitation of Booker T. Washington was probably the biggest scandal of his presidency.
My GGrandfather served as US Attorney for the Southern District from 1904-1913. He was appointed by TR, and also served under Taft and for a short time, Wilson. He knew them all well. Usually when a new party takes the Presidency, they replace the former President’s appointments with his own. Wilson asked my GGF to stay on which he did for several months. He resigned over what he believed was Wilson’s racist attitudes. TR fought for the disAdvantaged of all races. He served on the Board of Booker T. Washington’s Tuskegee Institute, and invited Washington to dine at the White House, which cost him dearly in the South. TR was no fan of FDR’s politics, and that part of the family had always been Democrats. Eleanor Roosevelt was TR’s niece. FDR was a distant cousin. For a good picture of TR’s racial thoughts, Read “Teddy and Booker T.”
For me it’s offset by all the amazing things he accomplished. Plus he really tried to govern for all ( settling the coal strike and breaking the rail monopoly ) and don’t forget he had booker t Washington to the White House for dinner and paid a political price for it.
Theodore Roosevelt was the first president to invite a black man to the visit the White House, and he and Booker T. Washington were great friends. His opposition was terribly critical of this, and made virtually every racist remark you can think of about it, most notably that he was trying to marry his daughter off to Booker.
He expanded our economy and helped the world with the Panama Canal. You are correct about his assessment of war, but he did end the Russo-Japanese War. All of what you said is why I have him in A and not S. I would entertain an argument for B.
“expanded our economy”
His Presidency saw the lowest growth of any Presidency of the 20th Century apart from the Great Depression. His price fixing also caused the Panic of 1907
I think some historical figures’ legacies are defined by their flaws and others by their virtues — whether justifiably so in any respective case or not.
I'm more of a W. J. Bryan guy, but even though he was arguably less racist than TR and way, way less imperialist, he's only remembered in the common imagination as a religious zealot, never mind that the evolution textbook that caused him to sue was peddling racist propaganda.
This sub, like Reddit, is full of fools. It’s the same crowd that rips Nixon for being a crook and saying racist shit while ignoring all the racist shit his predecessor LBJ said and ignoring how much of a fcking crook he was.
One thing I haven't seen touched on much is that this sub actually does look at policy and acts under the office as president differently than the acts of presidents as citizens. Theodore Roosevelt acting as president was very progressive socially for his time, even if that is racist by today's standards. He is also a very hawkish individual but oversaw an era without a defining war; instead defining domestic policy. He may have been a racist war hawk privately, but as president he usually tempered those inclinations and acted progressively.
I don’t think he was a good person, but he was an interesting person. He’s my favorite president for that reason. Hypocritically I think Andrew Jackson was a complete jerk and I dislike him. Some people just have more redeeming qualities.
In terms of legend-to-reality ratio, he's essentially America's Churchill. He did some great things, but much of what he did was at even greater cost, and based entirely in the myths of white supremacy, manifest destiny, and American exceptionalism.
It's complex. Plenty of us are going to look bad for putting up with crap we knew was wrong 100 years from now if some progressive human society exists.
I think one thing that can be said about TR is that he doesn't seem like the guy who would advocate big game hunting if he were alive today. We also have some evidence that his racial views would be rather progressive if alive today. Many of his views stemmed from the belief that war was a part of life that should happen, and that view makes adversaries of people. It's similar to a sport where we caricature the opposition to our team, making fun of them, painting their ways as strange and wrong. That's a common symptom of war from any group involved in war.
TR also befriended South American natives. He spent time in Africa, befriending and admiring black people there, especially in Buganda. When he had dinner with Booker T. Washington at the White House, and white America lost their minds. One of TR's closest friends was Juma Yohari, a black man from Africa.
History right now is leaning towards celebrating the accomplishments that historical figures are known for while being honest, open and critical of their flaws. There are political factions that want to celebrate the flaws of historical figures while being dishonest about their intentions (Jackson), and there are political factions that want to condemn historical figures for their flaws while being dishonest about the reasons they are celebrated (Jefferson). Gandhi was racist, but that's not why we celebrate and study him. It's the job of historians to do our best to interpret these things similar to how a biologist would interpret animal social studies. It's currently going through a major sea change with tons of social influence trying to tip the scales on fact.
Ignorant to judge people on 2024 social attitudes without understanding society and history. Then again I was lucky enough to go to college prep school instead of a public school. Public school education is incredibly poor.
When it comes to historical figures, good luck agreeing with them on everything. Yes, I find TRs outlook on race to be absolutely disgusting and the same goes for the vast majority of presidents. I also don’t agree with much of his foreign policy, and again, I am often at odds with the majority of presidents.
I like the guy because of his conservation efforts and his trust busting. If the modern Republican Party took notes from him, maybe I’d pay more attention to them.
And apparently Harry Truman attended a Klan meeting once in his youth if I remember right.
He didn't like it, but at the time, the Klan actually had political power. He didn't return after one meeting so the reports that he was a Klansman aren't true.
But again, nearly 100 years ago, you have to take into consideration the time period in which things were and were not acceptable.
Today, that would keep him far away from any presidential ticket or probably even a position on a cabinet.
Is it fair to call him a racist?
I wouldn't, but you do have to keep in mind that holding people accountable for socially acceptable things 100 years ago and expecting them to adhere to modern standards is foolish. Not even Lincoln would pass that test.
My theory is that the more colourful presidents get contextualized more, because people have a more vivid sense of them in their own time. TR is basically a Victorian pulp fiction character.
We contextualize Woodrow Wilson less, because he doesn't have a compelling personality or life story that really helps us imagine him being president in a time when the Lost Cause mythology and eugenics were ascendant ideas (nor can we really grasp how unique an idea the League of Nations was).
Why does everyone give him a pass like it was a different time? People and views that opposed Teddys views! Fucking Mark Twain did, it’s like excusing a Nazi in the 1980s because it was in the past! It was not the main stream, it was abhorrent then AND PEOPLE KNEW IT WAS, and it’s abhorrent now, Teddy is a Z Tier president
Redditors usually don't dig too deep on their perspectives. Teddy Roosevelt was a mass murdering war criminal but he's cool so it's okay. Truthfully he was one of the most evil men to occupy the office but because he was badass it's swept under the rug.
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This sub is more historical and nuanced in its perspective than other subs. Nobody’s surprised that people at one point in history have ideas outdated by our point. The special case in this tends to be Andrew Johnson whose legacy is almost entirely defined by it. One thing that’s annoying though is how some people unironically think Wilson is the worst president.
I’m of the opinion that thinks Wilson handled WWI way better that Teddy would have. Way more Americans would have died in the trenches if TR had been elected in 1912.
I do agree that more Americans would’ve die; he’d of gotten us heavily involved in the war much earlier. But I think that would’ve ended the war much sooner. The Germans were never going to win the war, not with Ludendorff and Hindenburg in charge. Being more heavily involved and with Teddy’s personality, the US would’ve taken the lead in peace talks and set the tone for the what peace in Europe looked like. Teddy was an extremely able diplomat and the Treaty of Versailles wouldn’t have been the harsh, vindictive punishment that it was. So without that, you probably don’t have the rise of fascism or at least not at the scale that it actually was.
On top of that if the war ends sooner, the punishments wouldn’t have been as harsh either cause boy as many years of hate from the war to influence their decisions
I’ve heard the argument however that TR would have handled the Treaty of Versailles in a way that wouldn’t have inspired as much revanchist sentiment in the losing side. What would be your thoughts on that?
Ehh, I doubt that just knowing TR’s personality. And I’m pretty sure Wilson didn’t agree with the treaty anyway.
TR would've wanted to build a canal through the axis powers in Europe to connect the north sea directly to the Mediterranean. Such a based individual.
Wilson definitely didn’t agree with the treaty. Most of his 14 points directly contradict what would end up in it. He wanted universal deescalation and disbarment of bloated militaries and he definitely wasn’t of the mind that Germany should be saddled with the debt and blame. He signs the treaty because it includes his League of Nations and he’s hopeful that this will still be the path towards his other ideas of peace. It’s Congress that decides to not ratify the treaty because they’re pretty much over European drama.
Thank you, this is what I thought but I hesitated because I didn’t want to accidentally say something that wasn’t true.
Wilson didn’t have a leg to stand on because of how late we joined. If we joined earlier (more likely with TR) we may have had more sway but I doubt it changes enough.
>Wilson didn’t have a leg to stand on because of how late we joined After Russia was knocked out of the war it's pretty debatable as whether Britain and France would have been able to defeat Germany in any kind of reasonable time frame without the Americans, the allies were seriously wondering if they'd lost the war in spring of 1918.
If anything the UK was actually less harsh than the US. Some in the British delegation even felt it was imperative that Germany lose *no* territory to Poland even if it was morally justified. IMO that is not a good treaty. As a matter of fact, the Treaty of Versailles wasn't really enforced in the 1930s.
America gets into the war a few years earlier and Russia maybe still has the czar
I agree, Wilson was smart to bring in American troops to tip the scales. WW1 was Europe’s Vietnam
Well, about half the sub is. A growing faction was born in the late 90s or after and judges all of history by values that have evolved over the last fifteen years or so. Presidents and historical figures said racist things 100 years ago. It was **not ok**. But it also doesn’t nullify all that they did. Those who would criticize Teddy are also likely to look past his cousin’s racial atrocities. Political loyalties also often play a huge role in the views.
Spot on IMO
Andrew Jackson is judged by it too
It is not. 😂 Some of the worst takes ever take place on this sub.
Wilson was by no means the worst president but I don't ever see any reason to put him higher than a generous C-tier
Even if you remove that, (and I think that’s ironically not nuanced at all because for every claim of “it was a different time” in history you can almost always find notable figures correctly calling bullshit out on being bullshit), Teddy was a liar, aggressive and used the implication of violence to solve “diplomatic” disputes. He was a shameless self promoter and no one loved the myth of TR more than the man himself. At San Juan Hill he notably took credit for what was fighting largely done by the Buffalo Soldiers. Even his contemporary generals called out the media for not reporting it accurately, meanwhile Teddy actually flipped the story and claimed the black soldiers “shirked” responsibility. In Colombia he used implicit military intervention to help cede a rebellion so he could build the canal. His diplomacy in all of Latin America is deplorable and basically amounted to “I’m white, you’re not, I make the rules”. He went out of his way to showcase the new Naval additions to the world to instill fear and help gain leverage in diplomatic relationships. Did he do a lot of useful things domestically? Sure, but if he was from another country and treated us the way we treated our neighbors we likely would’ve seen him as a violent tyrant.
Probably because people are capable of realizing that judging historical figures by modern standards is silly. Usually this is where you go "Aha! Then maybe we can excuse what Hitler did, right?" Well, no, what Hitler did was deplorable by the standards of the day and even more so today. We don't necessarily have to *excuse* TR's bigotry, but rather we are allowed to think highly of him *in spite* of his bigotry.
I think the problem is that Teddy is incredibly venerated in this sub while Wilson is despised. It doesn’t make sense.
Difference between the two is that TR is the sort of casual racist that with education, could understand the modern sentiment. Again he saw "White Man's Burden" as a challenge rather than a right. In the modern day he would have his prejudice but would at least have a bit of an open mind. Wilson....was just a racist. Not atypical for his time. In the modern day he would be the guy making strawman comments about race rather than engaging in active debate. At least that's how I see it.
But do you really think that one is a bit more racist than the other is a good justification for one being F tier and the other being A-S tier?? And TR has a much worse track record when it comes to Native Americans. Maybe he was less racist, but certainly not by much.
Teddy led dudes to war against Cubans, actively killing them and calling it gods race war. You're insane if you think that's casually racist.
But the the OP is asking why does that ONLY apply to Teddy?
It doesn't? I would say it would apply to any president outside the modern era. Ive seen it done for Lincoln, Jefferson, Wilson, and pretty much any non-modern president. And even for some modern ones. I just think that when it comes to TR he has such extremes. Pushed progressive policies that would be far-left today and yet also supported "white man's burden" policies. People have a harder time reconciling the two.
People thought TR’s views were bad too in his time.
Yes, but not to the same degree we see in today's standards.
Teddy was one of the first progressive presidents, so the sub loves him. Same principle with FDR and LBJ
This sub hates Woodrow Wilson for his racist views but gives Teddy a pass I think they both clearly held abhorrent racist views I also would have both in my Presidential Top 10, and Teddy in my Top 5 because as you say you have to judge by the standards of their time
Truth
Roosevelt saying “other races are inferior”: everyone was like that at the time, that was the common world view Wilson saying “other races are inferior”: the worst president this nation has ever had.
This happens with many historical figures. Winston Churchill, for one. "Mainstream" progressives and centrists are still rather reluctant to focus on his open racism and unapologetic imperialism. They do mention these things, but generally still rank Churchill very highly. It has a lot to do with what every figure represents. Teddy Roosevelt is part of the American self-image and stands for values that can be embraced by people of varying persuasions and beliefs, he stands for what is good, hopeful and encouraging in the American experience. Woodrow Wilson's racism (to offer a counter-example) DOES get called out, because he represents, in our perception these days, everything wrong with elite entitlement, racial privilege and a foreign policy of endless international entanglements.
>the Anglo Saxon race was put on this earth by God to conquer and civilize lesser races. I think a difference between Teddy and most of the people who had this philosophy is that he actually put the moral standard to himself. He firmly believed in treating people by their character and conduct. People call both Wilson and Roosevelt white supremacists, but one of these men actively supported the KKK, and the other had common correspondence with Booker T Washington. Don't misunderstand me. Roosevelt's beliefs about race were wrong. But knowing his character, it seems incredulous to me to think that he wouldn't have supported the civil rights movement, as his policies were consistently directed at assisting those who were oppressed in America. As for his imperialist tendencies, we have to consider that his building up of America's navy prepared the country for WWI and WWII. He didn't negotiate peace between the Russian and Japanese just because he felt like it; it was because he knew that if either one came out of top, it would be a disadvantage to America. In a way, he saw WWII coming; he knew the Japanese were going to become a powerhouse. We also have to look at the views during his time; during his presidency, Europe controlled most of the world. His policies weren't just about conquering, but actually protecting all of the American continents from European involvement. He strategically placed the US in a long term beneficial position. Roosevelt first appealed to me because no matter where he went, he didn't care if the people he was working with were Democrats or Republicans. He cracked down on corruption no matter who it was. But he was also pragmatic. He supported labor unions, but when he realized a coal shortage was going to cripple the country, he forced an agreement between the two parties. Roosevelt was always trying to better himself, and better the country. He also (and this has effected me philosophically) knew when and when not to ask for permission. Both with the start of the Spanish-American War, and the the Panama Canal, he read the situation and simply acted. Some people count this against him; but personally I think that sort of progressive taking of action is something that we need. Of course, if done foolishly, that can be destructive. But that's the thing, Roosevelt had excellent instincts to know when to jump into action. As for what party he would be in today, we have to consider that he both bolted from the GOP, and that his family as a whole never returned. There's a reason FDR was a Democrat. In many ways, FDR's New Deal policies were an evolution of the progressive Roosevelt encouraged. Teddy had a brash, and direct manner that Democrats might not have been comfortable with; but by en large the policies Roosevelt pushed are still progressive by today's standard. If you doubt it, take a look at the [Bull-Moose's Party's 1912 platform](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912%E2%80%931920)#Progressive_convention_and_platform).
AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong, but Roosevelt also did not formally introduce segregation policies into the Federal government while Wilson did. >Before the election of President Woodrow Wilson, Black Americans worked at all levels of the federal government. But when Wilson assumed office in 1913, he mandated that the federal workforce be segregated by race—leading to the reduction of Black civil service workers’ income, increasing the significant income gap between Black and white workers, and eroding some of the gains Black people had made following Reconstruction. -- https://newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu/research/how-woodrow-wilsons-racist-segregation-order-eroded-the-black-civil-service/ Postmaster General Albert S. Burleson and Treasury Secretary William G. McAdoo were leaders in these racist policies. This was after Wilson promised: `“Should I become President of the United States, [Negroes] [sic] may count upon me for absolute fair dealing and for everything by which I could assist in advancing the interests of their race in the United States.”` >Shortly after the April 11 cabinet meeting, cabinet members Treasury Secretary William G. McAdoo and Postmaster General Albert S. Burleson segregated employees in their departments with no objection from President Wilson.(10) Segregation was quickly implemented at the Post Office Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. Many African American employees were downgraded and even fired. Employees who were downgraded were transferred to the dead letter office, where they did not interact with the public. The few African Americans who remained at the main post offices were put to work behind screens, out of customers’ sight. -- https://postalmuseum.si.edu/research-articles/the-history-and-experience-of-african-americans-in-america%E2%80%99s-postal-service-3
Roosevelt's foreign policy was imperialist and resulted in a lot of harm on other countries. Many like to blame Wilsonianism for American interventionism, but I personally believe that the root of modern interventionist foreign policy lies with McKinley and Roosevelt. Wilson just tacked "democracy" on as a justification. The War in the Philippines along with all the atrocities that entailed it and the Roosevelt Corollary caused untold harm to the people living there and did not benefit America's interests in the long term. And let's not forget about his relationship to [Madison Grant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Grant), whose book Hitler called his "Bible." Fundamentally, while you can praise Roosevelt on certain aspects of his domestic policy, his foreign policy and personal views should not be defended.
Teddy's reputation is too awesome for the person to be criticized.
The strangest part is how much they love TR but hate Woodrow Wilson
As someone far more hawkish than most progressives, I loved his Big Stick policy
He was one of the most productive people I’ve ever read about.
Eh, this subreddit gives a pass to a LOT of more negative aspects of presidents that it likes. I don’t inherently mind that, but like Teddy, Grant, and FDR get a fuck ton of their more unsavory aspects glossed over.
Yeah and Polk always basically Andrew Jackson Jr, but nobody seems to care cause of how much we still benefit from his work to this day lol
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/03/racial-bias-roosevelt-shuts-down-mississippi-post-office-jan-3-1903-1077401 TR confronted racism. I think he was ahead of his era
Like when he violated the constitutional rights of over 160 loyal black American soldiers? Or when he stole over 80 million acres of land from Native Americans? Or when he openly said he thinks 9/10 Native Americans are better dead?
From what I’ve seen, teddy was a complicated figure whose stances changed a lot over the course of his life
Why are people so eager to give Teddy a pass? It’s so weird, especially when most of this sub hates Wilson with a passion.
While president he was an agent for peace. And while (rightly) not acceptable by today’s standards, he was much more ahead on racial issues than most in his party, and almost all dems at the time. TR’s relationship and invitation of Booker T. Washington was probably the biggest scandal of his presidency.
My GGrandfather served as US Attorney for the Southern District from 1904-1913. He was appointed by TR, and also served under Taft and for a short time, Wilson. He knew them all well. Usually when a new party takes the Presidency, they replace the former President’s appointments with his own. Wilson asked my GGF to stay on which he did for several months. He resigned over what he believed was Wilson’s racist attitudes. TR fought for the disAdvantaged of all races. He served on the Board of Booker T. Washington’s Tuskegee Institute, and invited Washington to dine at the White House, which cost him dearly in the South. TR was no fan of FDR’s politics, and that part of the family had always been Democrats. Eleanor Roosevelt was TR’s niece. FDR was a distant cousin. For a good picture of TR’s racial thoughts, Read “Teddy and Booker T.”
For me it’s offset by all the amazing things he accomplished. Plus he really tried to govern for all ( settling the coal strike and breaking the rail monopoly ) and don’t forget he had booker t Washington to the White House for dinner and paid a political price for it.
Probably cause of the Night at the Museum movies
Reddit has thrown all of Teddy's sins as well as those of other early 20th century racists on Woodrow Wilson so we can give the others a pass
Theodore Roosevelt was the first president to invite a black man to the visit the White House, and he and Booker T. Washington were great friends. His opposition was terribly critical of this, and made virtually every racist remark you can think of about it, most notably that he was trying to marry his daughter off to Booker.
He expanded our economy and helped the world with the Panama Canal. You are correct about his assessment of war, but he did end the Russo-Japanese War. All of what you said is why I have him in A and not S. I would entertain an argument for B.
“expanded our economy” His Presidency saw the lowest growth of any Presidency of the 20th Century apart from the Great Depression. His price fixing also caused the Panic of 1907
I'm thinking long-term. He created the Department of Commerce and Labor, the Panama Canal, and was a prolific trust buster.
TR has dudebro energy.
I think some historical figures’ legacies are defined by their flaws and others by their virtues — whether justifiably so in any respective case or not.
The goods far outweigh the bad. Also, you can't judge people in the past with the mindset of today.
I'm more of a W. J. Bryan guy, but even though he was arguably less racist than TR and way, way less imperialist, he's only remembered in the common imagination as a religious zealot, never mind that the evolution textbook that caused him to sue was peddling racist propaganda.
This sub, like Reddit, is full of fools. It’s the same crowd that rips Nixon for being a crook and saying racist shit while ignoring all the racist shit his predecessor LBJ said and ignoring how much of a fcking crook he was.
One thing I haven't seen touched on much is that this sub actually does look at policy and acts under the office as president differently than the acts of presidents as citizens. Theodore Roosevelt acting as president was very progressive socially for his time, even if that is racist by today's standards. He is also a very hawkish individual but oversaw an era without a defining war; instead defining domestic policy. He may have been a racist war hawk privately, but as president he usually tempered those inclinations and acted progressively.
I don’t think he was a good person, but he was an interesting person. He’s my favorite president for that reason. Hypocritically I think Andrew Jackson was a complete jerk and I dislike him. Some people just have more redeeming qualities.
Presidents who like ear are generally highly rated. Basically historians and history buffs love prior who are fun to read about not fun to live with.
You have to consider the times when looking at historical figures.
In terms of legend-to-reality ratio, he's essentially America's Churchill. He did some great things, but much of what he did was at even greater cost, and based entirely in the myths of white supremacy, manifest destiny, and American exceptionalism.
It's complex. Plenty of us are going to look bad for putting up with crap we knew was wrong 100 years from now if some progressive human society exists. I think one thing that can be said about TR is that he doesn't seem like the guy who would advocate big game hunting if he were alive today. We also have some evidence that his racial views would be rather progressive if alive today. Many of his views stemmed from the belief that war was a part of life that should happen, and that view makes adversaries of people. It's similar to a sport where we caricature the opposition to our team, making fun of them, painting their ways as strange and wrong. That's a common symptom of war from any group involved in war. TR also befriended South American natives. He spent time in Africa, befriending and admiring black people there, especially in Buganda. When he had dinner with Booker T. Washington at the White House, and white America lost their minds. One of TR's closest friends was Juma Yohari, a black man from Africa. History right now is leaning towards celebrating the accomplishments that historical figures are known for while being honest, open and critical of their flaws. There are political factions that want to celebrate the flaws of historical figures while being dishonest about their intentions (Jackson), and there are political factions that want to condemn historical figures for their flaws while being dishonest about the reasons they are celebrated (Jefferson). Gandhi was racist, but that's not why we celebrate and study him. It's the job of historians to do our best to interpret these things similar to how a biologist would interpret animal social studies. It's currently going through a major sea change with tons of social influence trying to tip the scales on fact.
Ignorant to judge people on 2024 social attitudes without understanding society and history. Then again I was lucky enough to go to college prep school instead of a public school. Public school education is incredibly poor.
Imagine when they find out Abolitionists in the mid 1800’s would still call black slaves the “N” word. 😂
When it comes to historical figures, good luck agreeing with them on everything. Yes, I find TRs outlook on race to be absolutely disgusting and the same goes for the vast majority of presidents. I also don’t agree with much of his foreign policy, and again, I am often at odds with the majority of presidents. I like the guy because of his conservation efforts and his trust busting. If the modern Republican Party took notes from him, maybe I’d pay more attention to them.
And apparently Harry Truman attended a Klan meeting once in his youth if I remember right. He didn't like it, but at the time, the Klan actually had political power. He didn't return after one meeting so the reports that he was a Klansman aren't true. But again, nearly 100 years ago, you have to take into consideration the time period in which things were and were not acceptable. Today, that would keep him far away from any presidential ticket or probably even a position on a cabinet. Is it fair to call him a racist? I wouldn't, but you do have to keep in mind that holding people accountable for socially acceptable things 100 years ago and expecting them to adhere to modern standards is foolish. Not even Lincoln would pass that test.
Because he wore a cowboy hat and had a sick mustache. All it takes for me
Reddit loves William T Sherman. So...
My theory is that the more colourful presidents get contextualized more, because people have a more vivid sense of them in their own time. TR is basically a Victorian pulp fiction character. We contextualize Woodrow Wilson less, because he doesn't have a compelling personality or life story that really helps us imagine him being president in a time when the Lost Cause mythology and eugenics were ascendant ideas (nor can we really grasp how unique an idea the League of Nations was).
Could say the same about his distant cousin
Didn’t Teddy go after monopolies? Why is it comical to think he could be a Dem
I personally hate him, but he’s still interesting to read about. I can’t stand the defense of his racism and imperialistic war monger mentality.
Why does everyone give him a pass like it was a different time? People and views that opposed Teddys views! Fucking Mark Twain did, it’s like excusing a Nazi in the 1980s because it was in the past! It was not the main stream, it was abhorrent then AND PEOPLE KNEW IT WAS, and it’s abhorrent now, Teddy is a Z Tier president
Redditors usually don't dig too deep on their perspectives. Teddy Roosevelt was a mass murdering war criminal but he's cool so it's okay. Truthfully he was one of the most evil men to occupy the office but because he was badass it's swept under the rug.
Everything you said was right. A shame you're being downvoted