First, let me list the reasons why I place Wilson as one of the three worst presidents in United States history (sharing the spot with A Johnson and Buchanan). Then we can get into the discussing of stuffs.

---

He brought the US into WW1 at basically the worst possible time.
-Wilson favoured the British over the Germans since the beginning, as evident by propaganda and the sending of supplies to the Entente from the start. Had he joined up then, it would've been just another post-Napoleonic European war, Germany loses, everyone moves on. Instead, he waited until after he got reelected on a campaign of "I kept us out of the war", immediately declared war, and joined the Entente after everyone got really, really pissed off and exhausted.

Had he not joined in, they wouldn't have been able to sustain war much longer. There were mass mutinies in France, revolutions in all of the Central Alliance, government bankrupcy in Britain... but instead, he charges in in his glorious crusade and gives one side a definite enough victory to later fuel the Doltschluss mentality in Germany.

Plus, over a hundred thousand Americans died and an additional two-hundred thousand were wounded simply because Wilson wanted to join the fight.

He crushed civil liberties in a way GW Bush could only dream of
-Anyone heard of the Espionage and Sedition acts? Think of everything the GW Bush administration has done to civil liberties. Then add such nice aspects as going to jail for being anti-war. Or for belonging to a party that isn't fully pro-war.

Not only did this harm the country when the laws were in practice, they set up a very, very scary precedent that the current president seems to be attempting to imitate.

He single-handedly destroyed the American socialist movement
-Before the war, the Socialist party had representatives in Congress and several mayors. While not a major party, it was a substantial one. After the war started, though, Wilson effectively outlawed the party because of its anti-war stance. Not only the party, but any socialist publications were shut down because they weren't patriotic enough.

The socialism vs patriotism mentality crafted by Wilson persisted and, especiallywhen combined with the later competition with the USSR, spawned a phenomenon that has dramatically shaped the political landscape for the past century: the word and concept of "socialism" is taboo in America. Yes, a full half of the political spectrum of pretty much all other representative governments is off-limits in America. And it started with Wilson.

He supervised the Palmer Raids
-As a subset of the previous two points, these were raids against people considered to have radical left-wing political ideals. Ten-thousand were arrested, over five-hundred deported, and torture was used on American citizens in order to get information on the supposed radicals.

He brought back racial segregation to the White House
-People may excuse some failings of people in the past because society because even the progressives of the time were backwards by our standards. "Oh, X may have been somewhat racist, but so was everyone, and he wasn't as bad as most at the time." Well, that excuse doesn't really work when X actually goes backwards by the standards of his own time.

He staged military interventions in several nations to further US interests against the indigenous ones
-Granted, this is par for the course for the US in the XX century, but it's still deplorable.

---

So, yes. He's taught in schools as a great man who was held back from further greatness by others. He was actually the most harmful leader of the nation in the past century.

Something I forgot to include in the post is a link to something much more in-depth than what I said about the subject.

The essay in question.

The one I would argue most is the first one, I can't tell if you're angry that he didn;t join from the beginning or that he shoulded and had the British win.

But still Wilson was still a reformer second in his time only to Theodore Roosevelt (when it came to things like National Conventions and other democratic measures)and the truth is if people had listened to him WW2 would have been avoided. Plus edit: the essay is wrong on one point, people didn't dislike the Treaty because of Wilson, they disliked it because they felt it took away soverignity

This post has been edited by Alphawolf55 on Feb 27 2008, 09:16 PM

I take issue with nothing you've said above, GJ, save one thing...

Why isn't Harrison also in that spot for worst president?

I mean, for pete's sake, his term lasted a month because the idiot didn't have the common sense to wear a damn coat in the rain.

Honestly.

Well, he was just a macho idiot, no comparison.

Harrison only killed himself.

What are these social reforms he did? All I can think of is women getting the right to vote, but wouldn't the House and Senate have done all that?

He and Teddy were both considered champions of the Progressive Movement, meaning their terms lead to periods of more universal tariffs, environmental protection and things like direct primary voting, the elimination of I believe the speaker of the house choosing who always gets to speak. Edit: Though yeah women's sufferage was more of Teddy and McKinleys deal then Wilson in fact, Wilson had his inauguration crashed by the feminist movement because he admitted they are low on the list.

But if Wilson is a bad President what does that make Lincoln? He destroyed free speech as well, he started the most bloody war in our history because he didn't want to give the same courtesty to the South that we wanted from the British a hundred years ago. He also almost started a war with the French with a onesided Monroe Doctrine.

This post has been edited by Alphawolf55 on Feb 28 2008, 02:21 AM

I... I'm sorry... I just...

...I just can't respond to this...

WW 1 Wiki page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

Clearly you ignored my post in the other thead. His reasoning for wanting to enter the war was so that he could get his 14 points into the peace talks at the end of the war.

Politically he did not have the fuel to enter the war until his second term. Between resumed U-boat activity and the Zimmerman telegram the US was going to enter the war eventually. The US stayed out of it up till that point because of isolationism, which most people wanted (except for Teddy and his followers).

Wilsons wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson

Palmer raid wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids
I would quote it, but then I'd be quoting the whole page. You can click on it yourself.

Lets look at these arguments:

In response to repeated terrorism with promises of continued terrorism they did warrentless searches, interrogations, and deportations of suspected radicals. Mostly deportations. Yes they deported a lot of people who did not have US citezenship. They also drastically reduced the amount of allowed immigrants in the 20s because of growing isolationism.

As to destroying the Socialist party, how about actually reading about it before making that claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_America
Sure they arrested the someone who ran for president like 4 times under the Socialist banner for making a speech, but he was pardoned a couple years later. (If I'm not mistaken he also ran under the Progressive banner in the 1890s and/or 80s, but that isn't the argument at hand.)

Wilson' wiki again

I'm sorry you must be thinking of some OTHER nobel peace prize reciever. Wilson didn't do this.

...

However I do have to make a concession.
One of your arguments is right, and cannot be denied.

Yes, its true. He was RACIST! I know, the mere thought of an upper class, white person born in the mid 1800s being racist in unthinkable, but its true.
I cannot deny and do not condone his racism, but that is completely irrelevant to his policies. Any decisions he makes reguarding his white house staff has no bearing on the staff of his predicessors.

Maybe because legally it's an open and shut case.

If the 13 Original Colonies are going to argue they have the right to leave the British Empire, then the Confederate States have an equal right to leave the Union. The right to break off from the nation was a Constitutional right until after the Civil War ended, Lincoln ignored this and fought the Civil War anyways. You can't argue that the North was only defending themselves because the Union for the most part shot first, you can't argue they were stealing Federal Property because one, said Property was in the South and two, if that's true then again, why wasn't that a valid reason for Britain stopping us from forming our own nation?

The Declaration of Independence which at the time was considered a legal document gives a group the right to form their own nation if they feel their interest aren't being represented, the South's weren't. In fact the right to form your own country in pretty much every case but the Civil War has been a major US policy.

As I said. Wilson had his own grand vision of Europe and sent Americans off to die in order to fulfill it. And then didn't even succeed with that.

You know Wilson set up a propaganda machine during the war, right? The same machine that turned "armed merchant ship sunk sending supplies to Germany's enemy" into "them damn Krauts sank that ship full of innocent American civilians!". It was clear that Wilson supported the Entente from the beginning, but his "well gosh golly, I kept us neutral, wait, I'm reelected already? CRUSH THE GERMANS!" attitude is rather deplorable. Plus all the damage it caused, as I outlined above.

...is this your defense of him or a concession?

After the damage Wilson caused, the party WAS lost. It still existed, yes, but it ceased to exist as a real political party. One that could actually elect people to positions of real power.

Haiti. Nicaragua. Panama.

Oh wait, I forgot that getting a Peace Prize actually changes the past and erases any non-peaceful actions one did.

"Wilson's policies were demonstrably racist. This does not show that his racism affected his policies."
Um, what?

Didn't Wilson also send troops to attack Russia?

Yeah, but pretty much everyone did. The Bolsheviks weren't very popular.

- He didn't succeed because only 4/14 of his suggestions were listened to. And even then the US government didn't sign the treaty anyway so even less than that.
Oh and the Leage of nations totally didnt turn into the UN after WW2. Oh wait it did.

- You didn't even read the articles I linked did you? 7 ships, directly after telling germany to not sink our ships. Also the immerman telegram, which you still havent commented on.
And yes, america used propoganda, point out a war that doesn't involve propoganda and Ill see what your point is.

-You have Zero privacy. Get over it. The patriot act takes liberties with our freedoms. Anti terrorist acts back then took liberties with our freedoms. I'd rather have a few less freedoms than repeated bombings.
Now if they take liberties with things like the Patriot act and start using it as a precedent for taking away our liberties without cause or reason, THATS bad. But its also a completely different argument.

- Socialist party was never a real party. Their main candidate Debs wasn't even originally a candidate for that party, but he had no other party to turn to when the Populist party died.
Debs got 6% in 1912, and that was their PEAK. Apart from the labor union issue this party had no real pulling power, and after the labor union acts that Wilson administered the party wasn't even as necessary. The party thrived during the great depression and didn't really start to die out until the 50s.
But knowing THAT would require actually reading what I linked, which we have already established you aren't doing.

-

This is just a continuation of Teddys "Big Stick Policy" concerning the US and its role in the Americas. And the treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan-Chamorro_Treaty isn't something that would put him on a list of worst presidents. Other than forcing a country to adopt a leader we selected there isn't a whole lot bloodshed going on. But we''ve NEVER forced other countries to select leaders of our choosing... OH WAIT.

- What racist legislation did he push for? Im curious to know what racist laws were enacted because of Wilson.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, we haven't had his GOOD policies looked at. You seem to have completely forgotten about those. Pretty much the entire economic section of his bio on wiki. Here the list.

Federal Reserve
Federal Trade commision
Clayton Antitrust act (if you dont know what this is you have no right to be arguing against me on American history. This is pretty fucking important)
Underwood Tarrif (lowered tarrif, this is good for international trade)
Income Tax (we dont LIKE it, but that doesn't mean its bad policy)
Seamans act (improved conditions for sailors)
Adamson act (8hr work day)
Several acts to help farmers

Fourteen points - Leage of nations. Failed because our govt refused to sign the treaty so we weren't in it, basically making it meaningless. This LEAD TO the UN.
19th amendment - women's sufferage.

He atempted to curb child labor but the supreme court declared his legislation on that unconstitutional so that had to wait till the depression.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before you comment on it,
The end of his political carier was not pristine, but most people attribute it to health.

Also - the quote pertaining to troops in russia

This post has been edited by demener on Feb 28 2008, 07:15 AM

I'm saying that he shouldn't have even been there in the first place to pass the points at all, but if since he already messed everything up and was there, he'd better have made sure he did some good to make up for the damage he did. It's like someone helping destroy an apartment complex in order to institute his plan to help stop damage to the complex and then failing at that, and you're focusing on the fact that, well, it wasn't totally his fault that he failed at it. Why ignore the fact that he went in there and broke things in the first place?

Well, it certainly did it kicking and screaming. Unless you have evidence otherwise, I'm convinced that the complete and utter ineffectiveness of the League made it less likely that the mildly-effective UN came at all than for it to have arisen de novo.

Hey, I have a better idea for protecting our ships and crews. Don't supply one side massively and claim "lol we're innocent don't shoot".

The Zimmerman Telegram is a nonissue. Did you read it? IF America declares war on Germany, the alliance would be formed. Oh no, how aggressive and vile.

If you're fine with the Patriot Act, then yes, I can see why you'd be fine with Wilson. I, however, am not a fan of it. Which is why the worse-than-Patriot Acts help me rank Wilson so low.

You don't need to get a president to be an important party. The Socialists used to have widespread local placement and minor federal placement (Congress does things, too, y'know).

If you can supply actual evidence that the Socialists had congressional representation and widespread local representation, I will concede that they survived the Wilson administration (though not through any lack of trying on his part to kill them). I read that link before I posted my first post here. A few mayors in liberal bastions? That's about as good as the current Green party, and a far cry from the pre-war Socialist numbers.

-

You do realise this is exactly what I said myself right? The US did this stuff all the time in the XX century, but it's still a bad mark on anyone who does it.

I said his policies, not his legislation. Segregating the White House actually affects people, which you said it did not.

How much did Wilson have to do with these? From what I'm reading, the Supreme Court had more to do with the CAA than Wilson.

Fuck farmers.

Yes, he did eventually decide to support it after 7 years of dealing with protests due to him opposing it. I will admit that.

Umm the fact that the AntiClayton Trust Act, is an Act pretty much implies it was passed by Congress and the President. Now the Supreme Court had to rule it Constitutional because some considered it to be Unconstitutional. But anyways I always thought it was Teddy and McKinely that, that act was with.

It still remains though you haven't proven that Wilson entering the war was a bad thing entirely, you say it would have soon ended but where's the proof? Plus it could be argued it was in the US's best interest to act in WW1, since if Germany had won, they basically would have controlled Europe and one country controlling an entire Continent like that isn't in our best interest.
Seriously you insult Wilson for entering the war but who's to say the same shit wouldn't have happened anyways, I just don't see the Germans having a relatively two sided treaty. The fact remains though is if Wilson's 14 Points had been followed WW2 would have been averted.

edit: Plus you realize farmers use to be the backbone of the United States economy back then? In fact some suggest the Great Depression had a large part to due with the failing farm market, due to the loss of the European Market in WW1.

This post has been edited by Alphawolf55 on Feb 28 2008, 10:25 AM

...Wow. Just....Wow.

GJ when a country gets into a war the rights of the citzens are "violated" Every time.

Lincoln Suspended Habeas Corpus, which more or less introduced Martial Law. This meant any spies, traitor's, or captured enemy soldiers no longer had to appear in court to be tried. This also extended to Draft dodgers.

This was only our Civil War.

Now a huge part of the World is at war. Just, try to imagine that. And in a country as Deversified as America. Finding Spies or traitors becomes a bit more of challenaged if there are clues or whatever you want. You have to suspend rights to protect people.

My other few points I had have been mentioned already.

Alpha: Well, not really. Even if the 14 points had been followed WWII was inevitable.

The Treaty Fucked Germany Over, Big time, nothing about that was in his 14 points. Because of that Hitler was able rise to power because he was going to restore German. They had to shoulder most of the debt. Take full blame. Have there country divided. Have there military almost completely destroyed. and a few other things that left them Poor as hell and dieing. And the last nail? No aid from anyone.

When WWII came around the treaty was handled differently and that why we are on good terms with a few countries that we faught against.

It was introduced by someone unrelated to Wilson and passed in both houses by an large margin, so I don't think that even if Wilson did push for it that he was necessary at all.

Considering you had stuff like Bavaria trying to secede as an SSR and that the armistice was signed by a revolutionary government, not the Kaiser's, Germany was not in any state to win the war in the west. They only place they really could win is the east (they actually already did...), which means that in the future, the continent is dominated by both Germany and the USSR.

And as I tried to ask in the WWI thread, how is "Germany wins, tries to force France into submission" any worse for America than "France wins, tries to force Germany into submission"?

Despite the fact that the German government was collapsing about as fast as the French army, you seem fairly convinced that Germany's going to turn around and win this thing decisively. Do you at least agree that a lopsided victory is less likely when neither side is reinforced by a fresh nation with the highest population in the western world?

Even back before WWI the farmers were only 10% of the population and they've been shrinking since then, yet they did and still do wield vastly disproportionate political power. I'm not a fan of the farm lobby.

Suspending habeas corpus is one thing. Arresting people for holding certain (mainstream!) political views is certainly quite another. You can have a functioning republic with the former, but the latter kinda ruins the whole idea.

A fifth of the population rising up in armed revolt is quite a different situation than just another European tiff. Granted, the Great War was a big European tiff, but a European tiff it was all the same, and the US had no reason at all to get involved in it.

DH: One of the major things Wilson tried to do during the peace talks was try to reduce those debts, he knew that if France and Britain tried to make Germany pay for the whole thing it would have only caused bitterness on Germany's part.

GJ: One, if Germany had won the war, the USSR probably wouldn't stand for long, Russia was at the time poor and weak for its size (they didn't even have enough guns for everyone in the trenches), with Germany having no major enemies to fight, they would have been in the perfect spot to fight them, the only thing that would potientially hold back Germany is the frozen lands that held them back partly in WW2.

So wait, you're upset that us entering war caused lives to be lost, yet at the same time you feel if we hadn't entered the war would have been in a relatively stalemate position, so wouldn't that logically mean the war would have gone on longer and more lives would have been lost?

Also France winning and forcing Germany into submission isn't better then Germany winning and forcing Germany into submission, what is better is France and Britain both winning and forcing Germany into submission, since it still keeps the forces of Europe somewhat divided, plus if we hadn't entered the war and if either Germany or France and England had won, then terms probably would have been far worse for the losing side.