How can they overlook the racism? He segregated the Federal government, while president of Princeton, he discouraged blacks from even applying, he accepted the Confederate version of history that the South was a victim during Reconstruction (he even wrote that the KKK was a natural response to this victimisation), and he advocated the establishment of Israel with no regard for the Arabs who inhabited the region.
2007-01-26 14:57:21 · 5 answers · asked by I'll Take That One! 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
He was a racist. Wilson's failure to keep promises to blacks made in the 1912 presidential election resulted in his having a very stormy meeting with W. E. B. DuBois, an influential African-American of that time. Wilson did have accomplishments, such as Progressive reforms and being an effective war leader. His leadership and selection of Gen. John J. Pershing were part of an amazingly effective military effort in such short time.
While I do not think Wilson should be evaluated only on his racial views, he spent much of his life in Georgia and Virginia, and he was very much the segregationist you described. In short, most history has been written by New Deal Democrats; that is just the nature of academics in history. Dwight D. Eisenhower, was an outstanding president, but the historical profession was way behind the public in recognizing this, because of its bias for Democrats. Similarly, the historical field really jumped on President Ronald Reagan, becasue he was a Republican. Does not he look great now? Times have changed some and their is probably less bias. However, if you look at most U.S. history textbooks, they may be revised, but leading ones such as by John Garraty, George Tindall, and Thomas Bailey, who are old New Deal Democrats. They are not uncritical of Wilson, but a lot more sympathetic than if he was a Republican. Similarly, I think if Theodore Roosevelt had been a Democrat, historians would rank him much higher.
Abraham Lincoln is an exception, because of the Civil War, and the Republican Party at that time was primarily an anti-slave party. That changed with the defeat of the Confederacy and end to slavery.
2007-01-26 17:02:13 · answer #1 · answered by Rev. Dr. Glen 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The words evolution and creation are synonyms to the educated human. President Wilson believed in the League of Nations when most Americans did not want to get involved in politics outside of our boundaries, too. Personally, I believe in creation through natural processes like mitosis powered by the will of God, for change and improvement upon God's creations. And mitosis is a method for making evolutionary change in most things whether they be organic or inorganic or microscopic or telescopic or terrestrial or extraterrestrial... Open your science books and see the truth in what I am writing as it is being confirmed by scientific studies conducted before and after Woodrow Wilson. And credit God with creation by evolution through mitosis.
2016-05-24 04:07:52 · answer #2 · answered by Cheryl 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like he was a man with many faults. I was not aware of the negatives you point out. However, all Presidents have a number of negatives. I suppose that those who are responsible for critiquing history choose to look more at his contributions to our nation than his faults.
2007-01-26 15:47:32 · answer #3 · answered by Beachman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He set forth the principle of self-determination; many countries became independent.
2007-01-26 16:58:07 · answer #4 · answered by Tune 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
league of nations. you must remember that early 1900s america EVERYBODY was racsit in spite of perceptions. it was the few people that were actually not
2007-01-26 15:47:20 · answer #5 · answered by cav 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋