Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:05, 19 April 2007

Georgia (U.S. state) B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state) B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Crooked Creek (Georgia), Ed Defore Sports Complex, Audery Mill Creek, More (Georgia)... More (U.S.)... Assess : Rate articles from Unassessed Georgia (U.S. state) articles and Unknown-importance Georgia (U.S. state) articles. Citing sources : Unreferenced Georgia (U.S. state) articles Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category. Geographical coordinates : more Georgia (U.S. state) articles missing geocoordinate data Infobox : Georgia (U.S. state) articles without infoboxes Map : Misplaced Pages requested maps in Georgia (U.S. state) Photo : Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Georgia (U.S. state) Stubs : Work on stubs in articles in Georgia (U.S. state) stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) radio station stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) road stubs and Georgia (U.S. state) geography stubs. Other : *Deletion sorting: Please see the collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Georgia (U.S. state) - compiled by WikiProject Deletion sorting Help out with articles placed in Category:Georgia (U.S. state) articles needing attention Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Tag the talk pages of Georgia (U.S. state)-related articles with the {{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)}} banner. Get Georgia (U.S. state) to a featured article quality standard

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Virginia B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Old talk

Go to the bottom of the Talk:George Washington page and see the honor ranks for Americans. Is Wilson's rank anywhere in the range from 5 to 10?? 66.245.115.51 00:18, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Wilson First Ladies names prior to marriage to Woodrow Wilson were Ellen Louise Axson and Edith Bolling Galt. Why undo my edits? The same format appears in other Presidents' bios.

ADHD?

Did ADHD even exist in the 19th century as a diagnosis? --Golbez 04:50, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it did at all. I was about to bring this up. Not all doctors even agree that ADD and ADHD are actual conditions; I don't see how an early 20th century president could have been diagnosed with ADHD even posthumously. I'm taking it out; anyone is welcome to put it back if they have some proof. --BDD 00:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that he suffered from ADHD, specifically that he had a learning disability, in his own personal papers he explains that it was difficult to read/write due to the moving of the text- a classic sign of dsylexia! It is a well recorded fact that people read to him, that has nothing to do with his own intelligence, just his way of learning information. If something was later determined to be an illness, disease, or diability it would still be releavant to classify it as a diagnosis?

White Supremacy

Wilson's suspected history of being a white supremacist should be included in the article.

I've never heard of that, but as long as you have credible sources you're welcome to try and do that. --BDD 00:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

He was definately regarded as a white supremacist. Check the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James W. Loewen

I think one should make a distinction between the white supremacy of Wilson and modern day white supremacy. WIlson did not hate non-whites, he just believed that whites were more talented.

I can agree with you somewhat, as he was a white supreasist, but I really think thats a collective memory that should be buried, it is a black stain on a man who was otherwise such a great American, I just don't believe many people will use the knowledge that he was a white supreamacist responsibly. I just think it is our responsiblity (as smart people) to understand that when we tell that to people, so many of them will dismiss him and never really look into his life beyond its biographical bones.

-C.P., Jun. 22, 2005

C.P., WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? "I really think thats a collective memory that should be buried..." What are you, a communist or a fascist? You clearly have the intention to censor historical fact and thus, any sort of truth. What is your agenda for rewriting history? "it is a black stain on a man who was otherwise such a great American," No, it is a (relatively minor) stain on an already horrible man. Why was he such a great American? Personally, I think Woodrow Wilson was the single worst president in all of American history. (For reasons I will make clear.) "I just don't believe many people will use the knowledge that he was a white supreamacist responsibly." And I just don't believe you are much of a critical thinker. The fact that Wilson was a notorious racist (with Ku Klux Klan sympathies) is nothing compared to what a dangerous buffoon he was. "I just think it is our responsiblity (as smart people)"... Somehow, if you TRULY believe what you wrote, I do not see how you qualify as a smart person. ..."to understand that when we tell that to people, so many of them will dismiss him and never really look into his life beyond its biographical bones." Well people should dismiss him, but not just because Wilson was a racist (and yes, most people were racist back then, but Wilson was more so than most), but because Woodrow Wilson was a war-mongering tyrant, and an overly idealistic fool. Why do I hate him so? The man LIED! Wilson's lie completely dwarfs the lies of Nixon, Clinton, or Bush. They make recieving sexual favors from a secretary and even claiming that Saddam has WMD's and funds Islamic terrorism seem insignificant, like farting in public and blaming it on someone nearby. Wilson ran on "He kept us out of the war!" when he had plans to support the Entente, and so entered Americans in a war which did not concern us, was none of our business, and we therefore were not supposed to enter. Thanks to that arrogant imperialist jerk, he enabled a decisive Entente victory (even if German victory was out of the question at this point, a stalemate was still likely and negotiated peace was still likely). As a result, the revanchist French were able to enact their peace terms which intensified (if not created) the German depression, created a weak provisional government (Weimar) and in many other ways hoisted Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP to power. He also, pressured the liberal democratic Kerensky republic to continue the czar's imperialist fight after the first 1917 Russian revolution, thus setting the stage for Lenin's infamous sealed train and the Bolshevik coup, but then later (after the 1918 armistice) provided funding to reactionary (including pro-czarists and pro-fascists) dissidents to overthrow Lenin's regime. Most of all, Woodrow Wilson broke the tradition of American isolationism. Wilson, more than any one person, could be blamed for the rise of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. On what grounds? The rediculous Zimmerman Telegram, which turns out was not a hoax after all, but was NOT a request for Mexico to declare war on America, only an offer to entice into Mexico declaring war on the US (which the Mexicans refused) in the event that America declared war on Germany. The Zimmerman note never would have been sent if Wilson did not sever diplomatic relations. Or the Lusitania? The allegedly civilian ship which was carrying explosives and amunition? Essentially, by allowing American civilian shipping into restricted waters, Wilson was using human shields! Wilson might be compared to Bush, but to do so is completely insulting... to Bush! The Patriot Act pales in comparison to the very Orwellian Espionage and Sedition Act! Also, I do not recall Bush using racist propagandha or whipping up anti-Arab or anti-Muslim sentiment the way Wilson encouraged racist anti-German propagandha!

Wilson's "History of the American People" is virulently racist, and was extensively quoted in the KKK propaganda film The Birth of a Nation. An example of a quote used in the film is this: "The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation ... until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country." The article has some discussion of this now. "White supremacy" is the kind of phrase people use to bash their opponents over the head with, but it's abundantly clear from Wilson's writings and actions as president that he was a racist through and through. People often try to apologize for this kind of thing by saying someone like Wilson was a product of his time, but in fact the Wilson administration marked a rapid retrogression in race relations in the U.S. When C.P. says this ---

I just think it is our responsiblity (as smart people) to understand that when we tell that to people, so many of them will dismiss him and never really look into his life beyond its biographical bones.

--- the solution is to expand the other aspects of the article, many of which are quite skimpy right now, especially the treatment of WW I and its aftermath.--Bcrowell 20:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

CP: Couldn't disagree more. I am much more interested in the man than the myth. Not just for Wilson, but for anyone and anything. Give me the real historical human being, warts and all. Spare me the portrait of the "Great American." Let me make that determination for myself, and let me have all the facts that I may do so. If Wilson is so great, than that will be obvious looking at his REAL life, not the sanitized version. If you are so uncomfortable with this side of Wilson, maybe it's time to find a new hero?--Cro Mag

I agree with Cro Mag on this. While his personal views on race were despicable, they should be kept in and balanced on the whole of his positive acheivments so we can get a better picture of the man. This article shouldn't serve to deify or demonize him, but show him for who he was. --Bobak Nov 22, 2005

What positive achievements? Setting the stage of for World War Two, the Holocaust, the Cold War, the Arab-Israeli Conflict (and by extension virtually every other major 20th century conflict)? Breaking America's isolationist, non-interventionist tradition and catalyzing the transformation of the United States of America from a Republic to an Empire? Inspiring the rise of Bolshevism (Marxist-Leninist Communism), Fascism & Nazism, and totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and statism in general? Lying to the nation? Betraying majority sentiment?

"Virulenty racist"??? Spare me the glib, cheap sanctimony. Wilson was indeed a product of his time and reflected contemporary mores, and nothing said above proves otherwise. Wilson's racism was absolutely NOT atypical. To apply current values to a past era is hypocritical and unscholarly. The term is presentism and reflects a superficial and sophomoric understanding of history...or an agenda. — J M Rice 21:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean by "virulently" racist. Perhaps to you Hitler barely qualifies as virulently racist (apparently one must be extraordinarily maniacly racist to qualify...). Woodrow Wilson was at least a tad bit more racist than most people in the Western world at his time.

Shacketta, Virginia

On the table it shows his place of birth as Shacketta, Virginia but in the article it claims it is Staunton, Virginia. Which is correct?

Research even in the Lost counties, cities and towns of Virginia fails to come up with "Shacketta" as a place in Virginia, at least not yet. Staunton, Virginia is what all the credible sources say. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 20:11, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC) He was born in Staunton. His house there is a landmark/museum now. I was there years ago, when I was a lil kid. --Kross 01:07, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

"Shacketta" was either a very confused addition or a poor joke, a pun on the word shack. A Google search yielded only one result for Wilson's birthplace as such (possibly a copy of a former version of this page) and another, as a person's name. There is a remote possibility that his birthplace was called "Shacketta" at the time, as it was not uncommon for rural towns to be "modernizing" their names in that time, but until I see any proof of that, especially if the "lost counties, cities, and towns" page showed nothing. I'd put my money on Staunton and nothing else; I've passed by that birthplace many times.

This can't be true

Even radicals like John Reed and Max Eastman happily supported Wilson. Mother Jones wrote, "I am a Socialist, but I admire Wilson for the things he has done ... And when a man or woman does something for humanity I say go to him and shake him by the hand and say 'I'm for you.'" (Ibid, 94)

What exactly is the source for this? Wilson was a conservative Southerner. Some of these people listed were arrested by Wilson's government, I doubt they would have much support for him. I removed it until this can be verified, as the articles of these people give no mention of this alleged support. I think these people actually opposed him, given the evidence. --Revolución (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Wilson was not that conservative for his time, and had a great deal of support on the left in 1916, including from Eastman, Reed and Jones. See Thomas Knock "To End All Wars" esp. pages 66-67 and 146-147. Their support for Wilson did not survive the war and Knock points out how the repression of the anti-war left during the war ended up alienating Wilson's allies that he then needed to push the League treaty through the Senate. --Hanover81 26 June 2006

I see the text is gone now. Good thing, as it misused the word "happily". -Will Beback 19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wilson apointed Louis Brandeis to the supreme court Louis was the first Jew to hold that office.

Wilson apointed Louis Brandeis to the supreme court Louis was the first Jew to hold that office.

Shouldn't we mention that?

Louis Brandeis is mentioned in the section on Racism and Administration.

Cutting down on POV

The article was full of POV and strong leftist biases. For example, there was more on Haiti and the KKK than on the Federal Reserve, the Cabinet, the tariff, conscription and anti-trust, combined. This has to be an objective article and it has to be about Wilson. I added a schoalrly bibliography.Rjensen 20:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Now there is nothing on Haiti, or Mexico, or anything about conservation.

Fake quote on "Birth of a Nation"

The whole story is told by historian Arthur Link in Wilson: The New Freedom, pp 252-54. Wilson implicitly endorsed the film by inviting Griffith to show it in the White House--but no one knew what was in the film at the time of the invitation. Aides said that Wilson had no comment whatever after seeing the film. Wilson explicity wrote that he "he disapproved of the “unfortunate production.” " T 20 years later in 1937 an unidentified source told a magazine the alleged quote by Wilson: "It is like writing history with Lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true."-- Thus dubious quote was not reported in any newspaper in 1915. Wilson officially denied that he approved the movie: "...the President was entirely unaware of the nature of the play before it was presented and at no time has expressed his approbation of it."--Letter from J. M. Tumulty, secretary to President Wilson, to the Boston branch of the NAACP. See also Roger Ebert's discussion which notes there is no evidence whatever that Wilson said that at: Rjensen 00:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Good work, RJ! --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 17:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Need merge / redefinition

Wilsonianism currently redirects to Idealism in international relations, which doesn't have that much to say about the eponymous Woodrow Wilson.

Wilsonian currently is a stub, but one which does mention Wilson's principles and policies.

We need to either

(1) Effectively merge Wilsonian and Idealism in international relations

or

(2) Make Wilsonian and Wilsonianism direct to the same page (I suppose "Wilsonianism" is the better choice), and make Idealism in international relations a separate page. (Of course, these pages may mention each other.)

Personally, I prefer option (2). -- Writtenonsand 20:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

More on Other Foreign Policies

The creator of this article obviously neglected on what Wilson's policies on Central and South America were. Can anyone who is knowledgable in this subject expand this topic, it should be another major topic not just a side note. Thanks --Exander 09:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Notes

I can't seem to figure out where the three footnotes (multied link, Dray, Wade) are supposed to link to in the text. Any ideas? --JW1805 (Talk) 02:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Educational Policy

"We want one class of persons to have a liberal education and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity, to forgo the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks." - Woodrow Wilson, from an address to The New York City High School Teachers Association, Jan. 9th, 1909. Should this be included in the main article? Surely it is significant, no? Alex Krupp 01:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

do you have a source for this quote? Say from Wilson's Papers. As far as I can tell it is not in Wilson's biographies and started circulating on the internet a couple years ago and looks like an invention. Rjensen 00:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a primary source, but John Taylor Gatto claims it in his book "The Underground History of American Education." The whole book is online and searchable on johntaylorgatto.com, and the quote is also on this page here: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/fourthpurpose/short.htm Alex Krupp 01:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

When a strange looking quote suddenly appears on www in 2003 that requires a real source. the whole purpose is suspect--it's a POV statement used to attack Wilson & Princeton politically so it's double-suspect. Rjensen 01:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a copy of the book, published in 2001. The book has been very widely read and I don't see any websites online debunking it. For this reason I would tend to believe it, and because of how precisely it was cited -- it should be trivial to look through his papers or the New York City archives. That being said, I would like it very much if someone could either dig up a copy of the full speech or prove it false. Alex Krupp 02:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the Gatto book, he's a well known crank with shrill rhetoric and very poor history. He sees a Prussian conspiracy to suppress the peasants and workers--called HIGH SCHOOL. so he's 99% POV and doesn't belong in a serious article. Rjensen 02:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue is whether Woodrow Wilson gave this speech or not, not whether Gatto is a crank. And for the record, you're the only one I've ever heard call Gatto a crank. Alex Krupp 04:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

we need 2 things: a reason to include the quote. 2) a reliable source. I looked in the 8 vol edition of Wilson's Life & letters and it's not there. Rjensen 05:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go to the NY public library and try to source it today. If it turns out to be legit then we can argue whether or not it deserves to be included. Alex Krupp 15:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Printed in High School Teachers Association of New York Volume 3 1908-1909 (n.p., n.d.), pp. 19-31. ALSO in Wilson, Woodrow. The Papers of Woodrow Wilson. Vol. 18. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1974. 593-606. Alex Krupp 21:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"I do not wonder at it. I think it is hardly just to blame those who have brought this situation about, because this change in modern life has come upon us suddenly. It has confused us. We are in an age so changeful, so transitional, I do not wonder that this confusion has come into our education, and I do not blame anybody. I do not see how it could have been avoided, how we could have avoided trying our hands at a score of things hitherto unattempted to determine at least if they were possible or not. Therefore this is not a subject for cynical comment, this is not a subject for criticism. It is a subject for self-recognition. The present need is that we should examine ourselves and see whether this be true or not; and, if it is true, ask ourselves whether the air has cleared enough, and whether our experiment has gone far enough, to make a definite program, to make a radical change, in the things we have attempted. This is the moment for counsel. The thing that is imperative upon our conscience is that we should ask ourselves whether it be possible to do it differently and better."

"Let us go back and distinguish between the two things that we want to do; for we want to do two things in modern society. We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forego the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks. You cannot train them for both in the time that you have at your disposal. They must make a selection, and you must make a selection. I do not mean to say that in the manual training there must not be an element of liberal training; neither am I hostile to the idea that in the liberal education there should be an element of the manual training. But what I am intent upon is that we should not confuse ourselves with regard to what we are trying to make of the pupils under our instruction. We are either trying to make liberally-educated persons out of them, or we are trying to make skillful servants of society along mechanical lines, or else we do not know what we are trying to do."

Wilson said we should end the grand experiment of equal opportunity in America and sort people into castes for the sake of the economy. I think this is worthy of being included into the article. Alex Krupp 21:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

no you are misinterpreting -- the debate was over high schools having a "liberal" pre-college education of Greek, Latin, and classical languages, or a "manual" education" of math, engineering and science. The point was very few people attended high school (850,000 compared to 18 million in elementary school). Wilson wanted a rapid expansion of high schools -- but should the kids be taught Latin or not was a serious issue. He started the first federal program of massive $$ aid to high schools. Rjensen 03:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be fair if he was just creating an opportunity for more kids to have a "manual education", but he wasn't. This was compulsory education, with kids being forcibly separated from their parents and thrown in jail if they didn't comply. Alex Krupp 14:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Compulsory educated ended at about age 13-14. We're talking high school here. The problem: how to get millions of kids into high school when they wanted to get a job,earn $ and be an adult. (we have the same problem today esp with boys.) Wilson is saying: don't force high school kids to all take Latin. They will be attracted by training in science and engineering. He started the first federal $ for manual ed and for farmer ed. It worked: high school enrollment was 840,000 in 1909 when he gave the talk, and it tripled to 2.5 million in 1921 when he left office. The great majority of the kids did NOT take the Latin curriculum. There are indeed critics who say that elite kids take Latin and therefore so should all kids. But high school was voluntary--I think Wilson was right that most of the 1.7 million new kids would have been repelled by a classical curriculum and would have dropped out. We have solid data from 1930s that shows kids who attended manual highschools became foremen and managers. (NOT assembly line workers, who rarely got to high school.) As for college, that did not become feasible for more than a few % until the GI bill after Ww2. Rjensen 14:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wilson and racism

Some conclusions by historians--"racist" yes but not unusually so:

• 1) Woodrow Wilson, we would conclude, was not a fanatic, a “racist” in the extreme sense of that overworked word. His blindness was the blindness of his time ... Woodrow Wilson - Page 100 by J W Schulte Nordholt - 1991 - 575 pages
• 2) In this period overtly racist ideas were advocated by all US presidents. ...President Woodrow Wilson was well-known as an advocate of the superiority of European civilization over all others Racist America: Roots, Current Realities and Future Reparations - Page 86 by Joe R Feagin - 2001
• 3) Imperial democrats like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson merged tutelary visions of the white man's burden abroad with justifications of racial ... p .54 Ronald Reagan, the Movie

by Michael P Rogin

• 4) Most American blacks were also justifiably suspicious of Woodrow Wilson, viewing him as a southern white supremacist. At Princeton, he had maintained the university's ban on admitting blacks. As a Democrat Wilson believed that to ensure the “Jim Crow” South remained loyal to the party he had no intention of offending white southerners. p 213 1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft & Debs-The Election That Changed the Country by James Chace
• 5) In 1912 Du Bois flirted with backing Theodore Roosevelt despite his being an obvious racist, and shifted his support to Woodrow Wilson despite being equally aware that Wilson did not “admire,” as he put it, black people. ...p 18 of Authentically Black: Essays for the Black Silent Majority

Rjensen 07:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely the fact that Wilson was the only post-Civil War president to introduce segregation in federal government is enough to conclude (or at least suggest) that Wilson was "unusually" racist? Grover cleveland 20:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

DuBois

Can anyone give a reference for W.E.B. DuBois being appointed to a federal office by Wilson? There is no mention of this in the W.E.B. DuBois article (indeed, no mention of his holding any governmental post) and a quick Google search didn't turn up anything. Otherwise I'm going to move this claim to the talk page. Thanks Grover cleveland 04:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wilson offered DuBois a military commission in 1918, and in return DuBois wrote a famous editorial for the NAACP magazine calling on blacks to stop protesting against Wilson, and to "forget special grievances and close ranks" with white Americans for the duration of World War I. See Ellis, Mark. "CLOSING RANKS" AND "SEEKING HONORS": W. E. B. DU BOIS IN WORLD WAR I. Journal of American History 1992 79(1): 96-124. ISSN: 0021-8723 Rjensen 08:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wilson's Endorsement of "The Birth of a Nation"

The film's popularity and influence were enhanced by a widely reported endorsement of its factual accuracy by historian and U.S. President Woodrow Wilson as a favor to an old friend. Much of the modern Klan's iconography, including the standardized white costume and the burning cross, are imitations of the film, whose imagery was based on Dixon's romanticized concept of old Scotland as portrayed in the novels and poetry of Sir Walter Scott rather than on the Reconstruction Klan.

The Birth of a Nation includes extensive quotations from Woodrow Wilson's History of the American People, for example, "The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation ... until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country." Wilson, on seeing the film in a special White House screening on February 18, 1915, exclaimed, "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true." Wilson's family had sympathized with the Confederacy during the Civil War and cared for wounded Confederate soldiers at a church. When he was a young man, his party had vigorously opposed Reconstruction, and as president he resegregated the federal government for the first time since Reconstruction.

Given the film's strong Democratic partisan message and Wilson's documented views on race and the Klan, it is not unreasonable to interpret the statement as supporting the Klan, and the word "regret" as referring to the film's depiction of Radical Republican Reconstruction. Later correspondence with Griffith, the film's director, confirms Wilson's enthusiasm about the film. Wilson's remarks were widely reported and immediately became controversial. Wilson tried to remain aloof from the controversy, but finally, on April 30, he issued a non-denial denial.37 His endorsement of the film greatly enhanced its popularity and influence, and helped Griffith to defend it against legal attack by the NAACP; the film, in turn, was a major factor leading to the creation of the second Klan in the same year. (sourced at/from: wiki on Ku Klux Klan - http://en.wikipedia.org/Ku_Klux_Klan

Expansion needed

I'll try to do some of this myself, but if others want to help, let's have more on, among other things:

-Wilson's early life, his parents, his upbringing, how the Civil War and Reconstruction shaped him

-His children, grief at his first wife's death, marriage to his second wife, etc.

-His achievements as Governor of New Jersey

-His Mexican policy in 1913-4 Biruitorul 21:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

W. Wilsons 14 points

Some info on W. Wilsons 14 points would help me with a project, thanks.

Er, there's a link in the article to this other article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Fourteen_Points . Do a little searching yourself. 158.143.162.119 10:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Incapacity

There is no mention in this article about the affect Wilson's incapacity had on his ability to negotiate with Cabot over the matter of the 14 points. Cabot, a Republican, proposed modest changes to the 14 points, but he left the meat of it intact. Wilson, however, was an invalid both mentally and physically at this time due to a massive stroke, and he was unable to grasp these changes. Kept out of communication with his supporters, they remained unaware that Wilson was so thoroughly incapacitated. Wishing to remain loyal, they voted against the amended version and sank it. The Republicans brought it up for a second vote, but the Democrats, again thinking they were following Wilson's wishes, but without any clear and direct communications, sank it once more. Rklawton 19:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the factual basis for the following?

User Rjensen made the following entry: At 22:49, 17 May 2006 Rjensen (remove POV and get DuBois role right)

W.E.B. DuBois, a leader of the NAACP, campaigned for Wilson and in 1918 was offered an Army commission in charge of dealing with race relations. (DeBois accepted, but failed his Army physical and did not serve.) When a delegation of blacks protested his discriminatory actions, Wilson told them that "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen". In 1914, he told The New York Times that "If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it".

Comment follows-- Any reasonable reader would expect that the link to reason.com would contain the conent of that paragraph. It does not. For example, Rjensen wrote: W.E.B. DuBois, a leader of the NAACP, campaigned for Wilson and in 1918 was offered an Army commission in charge of dealing with race relations. (DeBois accepted, but failed his Army physical and did not serve.)

Rjensen's claims about Du Bois appear nowhere in either article sourced AND appear nowhere in the massive two-part biography of Du Bois for which David Levering Lewis won two Pulitzer prizes for biography.

Aside from the careless spelling errors, the introduction of false information destroys the credibility of the Misplaced Pages project. This entry violates the tenets of Misplaced Pages: verifiability, citing sources and Misplaced Pages:No original research. It should be removed. Skywriter 23:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for failing to remove the old citation. The story of the Wilson's admin offer to DuBois is told in Ellis, Mark. Title: "Closing Ranks" and "Seeking Honors": W. E. B. du Bois in World War I. Citation: Journal of American History 1992 79(1): 96-124. Issn: 0021-8723 Fulltext: and also in William Jordan, . "The Damnable Dilemma": African-American Accommodation and Protest During World War I Journal of American History 1995 81(4): 1562-1583. ISSN: 0021-8723, online at JSTOR. Lewis of course covers the story in depth, see 553-60. For example the medical exam gets detailed treatment (p 533) Rjensen 01:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked at the second volume by Lewis. (p 533) must be the first volume. Skywriter 18:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Test for verifiability fails

Current revision Rjensen (Talk | contribs) (consensus of scholars is not POV)

Rjensen changed the following neutral wording in this section-- Federal reserve 1913 from this: - Wilson was able to establish the Federal Reserve system in late 1913.

to the following, based on Rjensen's claim that "(consensus of scholars is not POV)" + The most impressive achievement was passage of

Rjensen's claim is NOT supportable because of the failure to provide citations. The test for verifiability of this edit fails. The revert was unwarranted, and a change back to the more neutral wording is preferable. Skywriter 03:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The citations were at the end of the para and I moved them up. Consensus ispretty clear: to quote the textbooks: Liberty Equality Power with Infotrac: A History of the American People, Volume II: Since 1863... - Page 664 by John M Murrin, Paul E Johnson, James M McPherson, Gary Gerstle, Emily S Rosenberg - 2004: "The Federal Reserve system strengthened the nation's financial structure and was in most respects an impressive political achievement for Wilson. ..." or a second new text: Unto A Good Land: A History of the American People: From 1865 - Page 810 by David Edwin Harrell, Edwin S Gaustad, John B Boles, Sally Foreman Griffith, Randall M Miller, Randall B Woods - History - 2005 -"Generally regarded as the most important single achievement of the Wilson administration, the Federal Reserve System soon won the support ..." etc etc When there is a clear consensus Wiki should report it. Rjensen 03:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The change to conform with verifiability is appreciated. Skywriter 13:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Why were my changes deleted??

I tried expanding the entry to Wilson yesterday (26 June 06) and today all my changes were undone. I am curious as to WHY... I am new here and still learning my way but I did not think that anything I wrote either was unverifiable or reflected a POV.. –--Hanover81 18:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

the changes were pretty good. I strongly recommend making only a few at a time, to avoid annoying other editors. Rjensen 18:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I don't plan on making a lot of changes, but I do hope to tweak some and add things to make the entry fuller... I'm still fuzzy on why they were undone to begin with... –--Hanover81 19:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Affair(s) & Mary Hulbert Peck

Seems to be referenced in a few bios of Wilson

Or is it a hoax?

probably not consummated, but Wilson seems to have developed what he felt were inappropriately close ties for a married man to share with another woman (Mrs. Peck). In other words, more of an emotional betrayal, not physical. Probably worth a short paragraph. --Hanover81 16:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

it was not a sexual affair and can't be called one in Wiki. Rjensen 13:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This Washington Post gives some background. Article says that it is not certain whether, according to the "wilson letters", if the affair was 'consumated' but that Wilson was the subject of a blackmail attempt arising from this relationship with Peck . This blackmail attempt was later brought to attention of Congress years later.

Not seeking to tarnish the mans reputation, (affair seems to be general knowledge anyway), but it does deserve some mention since it was raised during electioneering and in Congress.

Ratification of the Treaty of Versailles

Is it better to bring something up in Talk before you edit? I edited a small section about the US failure to ratify the treaty of Versailles and almost immediately my edit was improved upon beautifully. I intended my edition to bring certain facts to attention, but should I have done so here first? I'm still getting used to the unwritten rules of this site. --Lindsay 18:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Academic peer-reviewed criticism of this article

From Rosenzweig's article:"We similarly learn that Woodrow Wilson belonged to Phi Kappa Psi fraternity and wrote his initials on the underside of a table in the Johns Hopkins University history department, but not about his law practice or his intellectual development at Princeton University".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

it is an interesting review, and it's what brought me here to create a Misplaced Pages account. --Hanover81 15:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It really is an excellent article - one of the best I've read on wikipedia, in that it acknowledges the flaws without taking on the hysterical, defensive tone exhibited by some. I assume that within the next few days someone will add information about Wilson's law practice and intellectual development at Princeton. john k 00:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a small section on his law practice. it's just the basics. have at it. --Hanover81 14:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Added Link's acoount of his time at Princeton. Home-schooled seems fairly pretentious; he was encouraged to read, and there were family group readings. Septentrionalis 18:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Plus, "home schooled" carries modern connotations that might leave an inaccurate impression of his education. Besides, he did attend a boy's school in Augusta. --Hanover81 16:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

March 4, 1921

From an account of the inauguration.

From the Woodrow Wilson Papers (ed. Link) 67:207:

...the meeting between Mr. Wilson and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, leader of the anti-treaty fight, in the President's Room at the Capitol, immediately before noon....

When Senator Lodge entered this chamber everybody gazed in his direction. He had come officially to inform Mr. Wilson, who was still President, that the Senate was ready to adjourn and to inquire whether he wished to communicate any message to the adjourning Congress. The appearance of Senator Lodge and all that his presence may have conjured in the mind of Mr. Wilson brought back a flash of his old fire.

"Mr. President," Senator Lodge declated, addressing Mr. Wilson, "as Chairman of the Joint Committee I beg to inform you that the two houses of Congress have no further business to transact and are prepared to receive any further communications you may care to make."

Mr Wilson replied:

"Tell them I have no further communication to make. I thank you for your courtesy. Good morning, Sir."

There was something in the voice of the President and the way he uttered these words which left no doubt that he wished to make only the most formal reply to Mr. Lodge. The President's response was not uttered curtly or discourteously, but there was no mistaking the rigidity of the response.

I have quoted at length because this is a good anecdote; but it should also squelch the idea that terms ended on March 3 in those days, On page 208 it continues that Wilson had stayed up until 10:30 signing bills, the night before, and had gotten up at 8;00 to sign some more. Septentrionalis 18:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wilson was inaugurated for his first term on March 4, 1913. He took the oath of office for his second term privately on March 4, 1917, but because it was a Sunday, the public oath of office ceremony was March 5th. In 1921 Harding was inaugurated on March 4 and Wilson left the White House for his home on S Street (as noted in your excerpt.) Why is this an issue? I’m not arguing with you Septentrionalis, or taking issue with your post, but I am confused why March 4 is an issue. --Hanover81 17:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC) –

It shouldn't be an issue; but a handful of -er- willful editors insist that terms ended at midnight March 3, which is mistaken. See the text I removed. There's no reason for WP to be wrong about this. So I documented. Septentrionalis 23:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC) woodrow wilson no omne has even mentioned or given significance to his most dastardly deed, whach was the implementation of the federal reserve, thissold us out to the world bankers. he qwas a weak ill meaning man hooked on sex and thats how they blackmailed him or used him by that.see his right hand man was an tool or was a agent of the world bankers see jekell isalnd 1913 is when he did it

Removing Secondary Sources

One specific editor keeps re-adding a very poor book on Wilson by James Powell. It's not an acadamic study that has gone through peer review, Wilson scholars do not take it seriously, and it's simply a biased partisian attack published by a political press with an agenda. I wish the person who keeps adding it (the author perhaps?) would stop. Hanover81 14:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Refused black students admission to Princeton?

The present citation to support this merely points to a verbatim, unsourced sentence in Reason magazine. Is there a better, primary citation demonstrating this fact?

Good catch. I changed the sentence somewhat and added a reference to Link. I'll try and find a reference to a specific quote and add it when I locate it. Hanover81 13:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"First effective draft"

The first paragraph states that Wilson instituted the "first effective draft" in the US for World War One. What about the draft during the US Civil War? Was that "ineffective"?? Grover cleveland 16:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by design; it was intended to enforce volunteering and substitutes, rather than force actual service. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

zionism

WP:RS source clearly says that Wilson supported Zionism. Then, the quote is said to have been after he was ill already and it's explicit: The zionist cause... if he said in 1919 something to appease objectionists... I combined all sources. One can't ignore ".I need not remind you that neither in this country nor in Paris has there been any opposition to the Zionist program..." I think that supporting the Balfour declaration is being zionist, else one would say that Balfour himself was not Zionist... ?I think in terms of the proper usage of the term, he was not only zionist but quite more than that looking at the border issue which wasn't minor but quite extensive. Anyway, I think we have a pretty good section now combined with everything . Cheers, Amoruso 11:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There are many sources which show that Wilson was symphatic to the Zionist Movement. You can see it all through the web for instance. As for the balfour declararion, this is an interesting read Amoruso 19:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Was Wilson sympathetic to Zionism. probably yes, but he always hedged his statements. Wilson for example never said the US "supported" the Balfour, only that it "acquiesced" and did not oppose it. He strongly opposed Zionists in some matters, such as sending Morgenthau tp deal with Hewish issue in Poland. Rjensen 19:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

any sources to refute my source ? Amoruso 21:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm using Walworth (1986) 473-83, esp. p. 481; Melvin I. Urofsky, American Zionism from Herzl to the Holocaust, (1995) ch. 6; Frank W. Brecher, Reluctant Ally: United States Foreign Policy toward the Jews from Wilson to Roosevelt. (1991) ch 1-4. perhaps the article should say: "Wilson's advisors were sharply divided on Zionism, with Brandeis a leading advocate and Morgenthau a leading opponent. As President Wilson was ambivalent toward Zionism. He explained the official American policy was to acquiesce in, and not oppose, the Balfour Declaration. Officially the U.S. did not support Zionism until 1922, after he left office; but Wilson hinted that he personally supported it. In 1919 he appointed Morhenthau to study the question of Jews in Poland, in order to keep the Zionists out of the issue." Rjensen

The quote is from his final days - at this time I think the quote speaks for himself. The difference between the official attitude to the balfour declaration is not that important as is his demand to Britain not to change the borders of the mandate. Amoruso 11:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson, A Different Perspective

Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president of the United States , was a man of ideals. It was he who attempted to make “the world safe for democracy,” and it was he who proposed the 14 points and League of Nations in order to contest war and aggression. Wilson had numerous grand solutions for the world’s largest problems. But a man, a president, should be judged based on the consequences of his actions, not on the gallantry of his ideas. If evaluated as such, Mr. Wilson does not emerge as one America’s most heroic presidents, but rather as one of the most ignoble. Woodrow Wilson had grand ideas before he became US president in 1912. Prior to his political career, which he began in 1910 as the governor of New Jersey, Wilson was the president of Princeton. When he began, Wilson decided that the entire education system at Princeton had to be revamped, and he proposed changes that would cost northwards of $10 million, despite the fact that the school’s endowment was only $4 million. He was successful in hiring 50 well-qualified faculty members and implementing the British tutor system, which had young teachers live in the dormitories with students and give them guidance. Wilson’s career at Princeton was eventually cut short though due to a number of disputes he initiated with important faculty members and patrons of the school. Wilson aspired to raise the intellectual bar of Princeton, which at that time was more of a rich man’s playground. In an attempt to break up the social cliques that had endured from years past, Wilson proposed the “quadrangle system,” which would basically have the school divided into colleges based on intellectual pursuit. This was met with much resistance from alumni, who considered those cliques to have been the epitome of the Princeton experience – an idea that was detested by Wilson. His unwillingness to compromise irritated a number of board members as well, and the fighting halted any forward progress. Wilson also got into a heated debate surrounding the establishment of the graduate school, which resulted in his alienation of important benefactor’s such as William Proctor of Procter & Gamble. Wilson’s arrogant stubbornness was cause for a nasty split from Princeton in 1909, the sting of which was allayed by his emergence as a political figure soon after. Wilson’s behavior at Princeton foreshadowed what would be his general attitude and behavior as President of the United States. His arrogance and belief that his actions were taking the moral high ground explain the unsuccessfulness of the programs and ideas that characterize his presidency. Namely, his entrance into World War I and the ensuing Paris Peace Conference in 1919.

The main mistake that Wilson made as President was to enter World War I in the first place. At the end of July 1914, an originally isolated standoff in the Balkans between Austria and Serbia exploded into huge war that involved not only continental Europe, but also European colonies and even Japan. The war has a number of underlying causes, but the immediate reason for conflict had to do with The assassination of Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand by Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princep in Sarajevo. The archduke’s murder prompted Austria-Hungary to deliver an unreasonable ultimatum to Serbia. At that point, Austria-Hungary had received a “blank check” from Germany and felt confident enough to invade Serbia and advance its colonial agenda in the Balkans. Russia, in support of Pan-Slavism, mobilized its army to defend Serbia, and subsequently, Germany came to AH’s defense. France, allies with Russia in the Triple Entente, joined the war, and as did Britain when Germany invaded neutral Belgium. Eventually, numerous other countries entered the foray, but the US remained on the sidelines. The US remained “neutral” until April 1917, when it declared war on Germany. Even thought they claimed they were neutral, they helped the Allies by giving them loans and weapons, but also by putting pressure on countries when needed. One big mistake the Wilson made in his pseudo-neutrality was due to his lack of knowledge about the ongoing Russian revolution. In 1917, while an interim government ruled in place of Czar Nicolas II, Wilson pressured them to remain in the war, despite the fact that Russians were strongly opposed to it. The added complication of staying in the war made it hard for the government to consolidate its power, the public threw their support behind Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and they were able to grab power for themselves in October. From that spawned the USSR, Stalin, and the Cold War - which consumed American foreign policy for some half a century. But back to America's part in the war. A few factors contributed to the US’s declaration. The reasons used by Wilson to justify entrance to the war, however, are misconstrued and blown out of proportion. One of the first “acts of aggression” by the German’s was the sinking of the British ocean liner the Lusitania on May 7th, 1915, in which 1200 people died, of which about 130 were American citizens. A message sent from the US to the German government on the 13th of may decried the “violation of many sacred principles of justice and humanity” and stated, “American citizens act within their indisputable rights in taking their ships and in traveling wherever their legitimate business calls them upon the high seas.” This supposedly unwarranted attack helped build American sentiment against the Germans, and allowed for the escalation of America’s efforts against the Central Powers. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan resigned the next month in protest of Wilson’s handling of the Lusitania situation, as he believed that he was manipulating the occurrence in order to prepare America for war. He may have been right. Fifteen days later, the German government responded:

The Lusitania was one of the largest and fastest English commerce steamers, constructed with Government funds as auxiliary cruisers, and is expressly included in the navy list published by the British Admiralty... the Lusitania when she left New York undoubtedly had guns on board which were mounted under decks and masked… there can be no doubt that the rapid sinking of the Lusitania was primarily due to the explosion of the cargo of ammunition caused by the torpedo. Otherwise, in all human probability, the passengers would have been saved.

This being the case, the US government’s previous statements are empty ones. First of all, as it carried ammunitions, the Lusitania cannot be considered a neutral ship. Secondly, it was traveling in a war zone. It is never a good idea to travel through a war zone, especially if the ship is one carrying ammunitions. The Germans had taken out ads in American magazines warning civilians not to go into areas of conflict, so, although this loss of life was a tragedy, it certainly was not completely unwarranted on the part of the Germans. Even so, at the requests of the US, Germany desisted from submarine warfare. However, they resumed once again in 1917 – with the hope that they could establish a blockade around Britain – prompting the US into action. This method of attack that was considered so egregious by the Americans was in fact more insidious than the British blockade on Germany, but there were no warnings sent to London. This blockade, which cut off all supplies from Germany, was highly successful, but at the same time, it acutely disrupted the lives of all German civilians. There was no material for clothing and little food; basically, families struggled to find the most elemental provisions necessary for survival. Yet there was no questioning of British practice. Regarding the issue of not forewarning all incoming ships, it made no sense that the rules of sea warfare should apply to submarines, which are ineffective above water, and are subject to ramming from enemy ships (even the commercial ones, many of which were equipped with ramming devices). Besides for the sinking of the Lusitania and the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917, another incident that helped form US policy was the interception of a telegram sent from German foreign secretary Arthur Zimmerman to the German ambassador to Mexico, Heinrich Von Eckardt. The content of the telegram was forwarded to the American public. Germany was prepared to ally with Mexico in order to attack America. That a German attack on American soil was imminent resulted in anger toward Germany; anger that would buoy support for entrance to a foreign war, a war in which America should not have had a part. Zimmerman had written in telegram, “It is our intention to endeavor to keep neutral the United States of America. If this attempt is not successful, we propose an alliance on the following basis with Mexico: That we shall make war together and together make peace.” The Germans specifically did not purport to bring America into the war. They merely proposed a hypothetical alliance, adding in that Mexico could regain territory lost to the US. If anyone actually considered that idea, they would have realized that it was not tactically plausible, taking into account the stake of the German army and navy in Europe. How (and why) would they suddenly help Mexico recapture Texas? A German attack on America was truly not a threat. This didn’t stop Wilson and the US from declaring war on Germany on April 6th, 1915. But maybe it was Wilson’s prejudicial view of Germany, not one based solely on facts and the interests of the country, which played a role in his declaration of war. At the Paris peace conference following the war, Wilson admitted to Lloyd George, the Prime Minister of Britain: “I have always detested Germany… They are so far from our views that they have inspired in me a feeling of aversion (Wilson’s War, p. 149).” On the same note, Wilson was also racist toward blacks. In his book History of the American Peoples he writes, "The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation… until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to prevent the Southern Country. (Misplaced Pages – Woodrow Wilson)" His intolerance of non-whites and unwillingness to move forward from the discriminatory practices of old is seen while he was at Princeton, where he refused to admit black students because he deemed their wish to be educated "unwarranted." (Misplaced Pages – Woodrow Wilson) How can a man be seen as a great progressive when he maintains the same idiotic prejudices espoused by Confederates? Maybe he was truly not as great and kind a person as he is sometimes portrayed to be. Following US entrance to the war came a number of acts passed by Wilson that impeded on Americans' right to assemble and their freedom of speech. In June 1917, two months after the declaration of war on Germany, Wilson passed the Espionage Act, which made action or information transfer against the US armed forces illegal and punished by a large fine and jail time. In 1918, at the behest of Wilson, Congress passed the Sedition Act, which prohibited any defamation of things American, such as the flag, government, and armed forces. That Wilson had the gall to pass such laws shows his close-mindedness and his lack of deference for the Constitution. Entering, and ultimately winning, the war on the side of the Allies was a mistake per the interests of America even at the time, but that decision also had a number of unintended but terrible consequences. By the time 1917 rolled around, Wilson did not have a good track record with regard to intervening in foreign conflicts. He had screwed up badly in Mexico by trying to help solve their leadership woes, and April 2nd, he stood before congress, asking them to allow the US army to help make the world “safe for democracy.” Never mind the fact that Britain and France had huge colonial empires. Or that their generals were infamous for their squandering of precious human lives; Besides for losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers during a number of pointless offensive pushes (in one example, while following the orders of British general Douglas Haig to walk upright across the battlefield, 20,000 soldiers were killed in one day), they also had a policy of killing any soldier who was unwilling to go and die at the hands of the German enemy. The problem, though, with entering the war, is that the Allied victory and the ensuing penalties imposed on Germany by the treaty of Versailles are inexorably linked to the rise of Hitler and Nazism in Germany. Had the United States never entered the war, it would almost for certain have remained stalemated, at least until one of the sides sued for peace, or they came to a mutual agreement. Despite the Russian pullout and the ability to transfer a number of soldiers from eastern front, Germany was still deeply entrenched in the western front with no end in sight. They were also suffering horribly from the highly effective British blockade. Assuming they miraculously defeated the Allies on the western front it is unlikely that they would have been able to really taste their victory. The British would have remained independent based on the strength of their navy, and the uproar of nationalism in territories taken from Russia (which had originally wanted independence from them) and other countries probably would have overwhelmed the Germans. (Wilson’s War, pg. 6) America had no real reason to enter the war. The 300,000 casualties it cost the country were certainly not worth the eventual consequences. The issue of how to punish the defeated countries was discussed in Paris in 1919. Wilson, ever the idealist, had proposed to Congress in January 1918 fourteen points that would help determine what should be done after the war. The first two points guaranteed that all “international understandings” should be made openly, and that there should be “Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war.” His last point proposed the creation of “A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.” His ideas sounded good and gave hope for the future. Unfortunately, they were not successfully put into practice. Wilson was too weak to stand up to the pressure put on him by French leader Georges Clemenceau and British PM Lloyd George. They (especially Clemenceau) wanted revenge from Germany. In the end, in stark contrast to the lenient measures of the 14 points that aimed to create stability in the region, sole guilt and full reparations were placed on Germany, who were astounded by the terms of the “peace” and who felt betrayed by Wilson. They were also forced to cut down nearly all of their military. The severe economic depression that this forced Germany into, as well as the ignominious fall from glory, allowed for a man like Hitler – responsible for the death of millions – to rise to power. Maybe things would not have fallen out as they did if Wilson’s 14th point – the League of Nations – would have worked out. Unfortunately, that turned out to be a bust as well. Instead of involving everyone, the League only incorporated those countries that were on the winning side of the war. The losers were left out. So in effect, the League of Nations, which promised mutual security and supported a reduction of arms, just turned out to be a one-sided alliance; sort of like the situation before World War One. The League also lacked a military force that would be capable of backing up its decisions. And one of the biggest problems – Congress didn’t allow the US to enter. This supreme mess-up of Wilson’s was, like with Princeton, due to his stubbornness. In the most recent elections, the Republicans had won control of Congress. Wilson, a Democrat, adamantly refused to bring a Republican with him to Paris, which surely would have aided the making of his case to Congress. So when it came time to ask congress to ratify US entry into the League, Wilson was shot down. Wilson’s great idea failed; there was another war two decades later, and the League of Nations dissipated in 1946.

Woodrow Wilson can by no means by considered a hero. His decisions to pressure Russian into staying in the war and then for the US to enter the war directly led to numerous atrocities and horrors that occurred decades later. His intervention into a foreign war planted the seeds for other, destructive interventions later on. His 14 points were abandoned and his League of Nations bore no fruit. And not only was he an ineffective politician, but a bigoted one with little respect for the basic tenets of American society. Most of Wilson’s intentions may have been noble, but the terrible consequences of his actions certainly cannot be ignored. (Quoted in its entirety from: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-06-01)

Attention anonymous, I do not know who you are, but great work!!! :) This idolization of Wilson needs to stop! I for one am of the opinion that he was the worst president America ever had!

Revisionist History

There has been lots of revisionist history regarding Woodrow Wilson. He was an incompetent statist (switching back and forth between Communism and Fascism during his reign of terror) who was the absolute worst president in American history and shouldn't have been elected anyways. The Bull Moose Party split the Republican vote, tossing the popular and great President Taft out of the White House in favor of a statist. Of course, Misplaced Pages is a bastion of statism, so I doubt this article is salvageable. 69.19.14.44 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Register an account, start adding stuff, and quite wining... --The_stuart 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Expect, however, to be "edited mercilessly", as the edit screen says; Wilson was less statist than Roosevelt and arguably less so than Taft. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that Wilson was considerably less statist and authoritarian than Roosevelt (though perhaps not by much), but considerably more statist than Taft. Theodore Roosevelt would have been just as likely (if not more) to enter the Great War, possibly earlier, but Taft I'm not so sure about...

I agree with the original poster! Wilson was a terrible president! He needlessly entered an imperialist European war on the side of a (slightly worse) coalition of imperialist powers under the guise of "making the world safe for democracy". And what did this "victory" bring? Four totalitarian dictators, three of them fascist (Kemal Ataturk, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler) and one communist (Vladimir Lenin). One more World War (not counting the Cold War), and an imperialistic country. Read Illusions of Victory by Thomas J. Fleming, and (if you could find it) Wilson's War by Jim Powell! Of course, Misplaced Pages is a bastion of statism. It is a totalitarian organization disguised as an anarchistic community. Needless to say, if Taft got elected (i.e. if William Jennings Bryan was president in place of Wilson instead of Secretary of State), America would likely have stayed out of WW1, the course of the twentieth century would have been VERY different, and consequentially the Internet (and thus anything like Misplaced Pages) would never exist! (No WW2, no Cold War, no US military-industrial comlex, etc. means a delay in the invention prerequisite technologies. Electronic computers for instance, mainly grew out of the need to decode top-secret Nazi messages and the Internet grew out of ARPANET, a Cold War-era project of the US DoD.)

The Germans were unapologetically sinking American vessels. Given the long-standing American commitment to neutral rights, it's hard to see how any likely government of the United States in 1917 could have avoided war with Germany. john k 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Did they not announce it? The Kaiser gave sufficient warning! If Americans did not want their ships sunk, then they should not have sent them through blocaded regions of the North Sea and N.E. Atlantic. It is hypocritical to call submarine warfare sneakily barbaric because subs are covert and employ surprise tactics. Every other nation used the same naval tactics in some form or other as Germany did after the Great War. Also, when people argue that American intervention was justified in light of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, they conveniently neglect to mention that early in the Great War, the British maintained a Naval Blocade on Germany (albeit without submarines). The British saw growing German naval power as a threat to their Empire (before WW1 and the secret U-boat construction projects), and so, it was not a one-sided issue. The Great War was instigated by imperialists in BOTH camps, and it is safe to say that the Austro-German side were no more or less imperialistic than the Triple Entente. Anglophile Wilson had no problem honoring the British blocade. In retrospect, people paint the Teutonic nation in a historically revisionist fashion as if the sum of German history from Barbarossa to 1933 is an inevitable progression to Nazism and the Third Reich. Fact of the matter, many of the seemingly barbaric war conduct of the Kaiser's Germany such as Unrestricted Submarine Warfare and especially the Schlieffen Plan were strategic necessities (i.e. to counter British naval supremacy or to compensate for a two-front war). Essentially when a ship, especially a merchant or "civilian" ship was torpedoed, it normally would sink slowly enough to allow for evacuation. Not the Lusitania, why? Because it was loaded with military armaments, ammunition, and explosives. By carrying such volatile cargo aboard a civillian transport, Americans authorizing such transit were not only assisting the Entente war effort (and thus betraying any true neutrality), but using human shields! Who are the real barbarians? The barbarians who use a necessary if unconventional military strategy or the barbarians who use human shields? This whole "boohoo, the Krauts are blocking the seas, we only wanted freedom of shipping!" Is BS for two reasons: (1) in a time of war, and literally "Great War" things are a bit drastic. If one's goal is to secure neutrality of the seas, they are sadly mistaken, because imposing said neutrality is not neutral, since it is a behest on two or more foreign powers to conduct a war in certain ways. A responsible statesmen would probably uphold "neutral rights" in time of peace, but understand that this is usually not feasible durring time of warfare. Wilson was NOT a responsible statesman. (2) Like America was concerned about neutral rights durring the British blocade on Germany (which was equally as "illegal" as German URSW) or in hoisting the allies to a total victory and thus their revanchist "peace" terms, while having prentensions of "neutral rights". William Jennings Bryan on the other hand, proposed remaining neutral, non-interventionist, and avoiding even financially supporting any warring powers. WJB wanted to maintain close diplomatic relations with BOTH sides, to be in good terms with Germany, France, Austria, and Britain to safeguard neutrality. But then he resigned as Secretary of State when it became clear the Great Liar, who "Kept us out of war!" had intentions of entering the war. Woodrow Wilson's intervention had less to do with violation of rights or "barbaric or uncivilized war conduct" (which is fundamentally stupid and rediculous because this implies there is a such thing as civilized war, and thus massive slaughter with no defensive purpose could be inherently civil), than it did to his own largely economically motivated imperialism.

It is probably pointless to argue with someone who thinks that Bryan was Wilson's VP , but I will just note that I was not really discussing any moral rights or wrongs of war, just that any likely American government of the time would probably have acted the same way. Certainly the Republicans would have gone to war over the submarine business. john k 17:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I misunderstood, taking what you said to represent a contemporaneous moral case for entering the war by whoever was in charge, as if the "right" to commerce was being violated. Even so, I do not agree that any statesman in charge would have entered the war. Understand that at the time, functionally there was no Republican Party, but two splinter parties, Taft Republicans and Bull Moose Party. Not sure about Taft. Of course, T Roosevelt would have entered just as surely (perhaps even more likely) as did Wilson. (In my opinion, as you probably realize, Wilson ranks as the single worst president in US history, but Theodore Roosevelt ranks as a close second, and was potentially worse than Wilson.) The difference is, while T. Roosevelt, like his predecessor McKinley, was a bigtime imperialist, Wilson too was an imperialist though less aggressive than Roosevelt, and Wilson was a naive idealist. Had Roosevelt been president, then for all we know the US might have entered WW1 and ended it a little earlier. Nothing like Wilson's naive utopian 14 Points would have been produced, and the same course of history leading to Mussolini, Ataturk, and Hitler would have proceded, albeit perhaps slightly (though insignificantly earlier). IMO, Roosevelt was more arrogant (and a bigger jerk), but Wilson was a naive idealist. At least Roosevelt was more honest and less hypocritical in his feelings about the War. Of course, you neglect the fact that the argument for intervention WAS largely on moral grounds (even though you and I, with luxury of hindsight, disagree with such sentiment). Even so, in arguing on pragmatic economic incentives, you can not say that a different Republican candidate or a third party, independent, etc. would be just as likely to enter the war. Remember that someone lacking the brutal, militaristic, aggrssive arrogance, and smug egoism of Teddy Roosevelt or the naive idealism of Woodrow Wilson might decide that the most realistic, responsible, and safest course of action would be to avoid all entanglements. Note that while some Republicans (like T.R.) had a very nationalistic, jingoistic, macho-aggressive complex, reminiscent of the current Republican Party, there was also a significant isolationist Libertarian wing of the Republican Party, with anti-authoritarian, anti-statist, noninterventionist pro-small government policy. (Remember the isolationism of the Republican presidencies between Wilson and FDR? And the general nostalgia for American isolationism between the World Wars?) So essentially, we have moralizing right-wing "let's kick some ass!" imperialists like TR and idealizing left-wing imperialists like Wilson, (eerily reminiscent to Darth Vader, "I brought peace to my Empire!" in Ep. 3), but that was not inclusive of all American politics.

Quotes

I'm not sure how to fit this in in the Main article or if it's deemed important enough but here's a quote:

" Since trade ignores national boundries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process." Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, 1907 John Smith (nom de guerre) 22:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

did Wilson write that? he was of course not president but an academic in 1907 and professors say lots of things. it says nothing about his time at Princeton Rjensen 22:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

He did. Easy to check. Here's another one:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. - Woodrow Wilson

(probably bogus. see below)
and:
"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."----President Woodrow Wilson (in The New Freedom, 1913) John Smith (nom de guerre) 20:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

some of these these are fake quotes: "Most unhappy man is fake. "so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive" = genuine. (his complete works have been published so an editor needs the volume and page number for proof) Rjensen 21:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

ok. Thanks. I didn't know. there are so many pages that quote him that way. could you provide the link to the original quote?
heres another I would have thought was genuine:
"and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world-no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men."
John Smith (nom de guerre) 23:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The "biggest men" quote appears in his 1912 campaign speeches: Wilson The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People. 1913. Page 13. Likewise "we have come to be one of the worst ruled" is ibid page 201. Rjensen 23:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. just thought I'd add some minor corrections plus point out yours more clearly in case other people stumble upon the bogus quote(s) in their research. cheers. John Smith (nom de guerre) 23:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wilson's Earliest Memory

Hi. I just edited the bit earlier today adding the reference to Wilson's being 4 when he heard of Lincoln's election and the 'inevitable' war. It was since edited back (leaving the reference behind). I'm not going to get into an edit war or any such nonsense, but the reference clearly states the age 4, not 3. You can, in fact, read it online here: http://www.amazon.com/End-All-Wars-Woodrow-Wilson/dp/0691001502 The first few pages anyway. Which is enough for the reference. A point to consider when trying to state that since Lincoln was elected in November but Wilson's birthday was a month later is that his memory could easily have come from a time after his birthday. There is no need for his memory to take place the day of the election. Or even a week afterwards. Things moved slower back then. But, like I said, I'm not going to go into an edit war. I just thought I'd add a citation and correction where I saw it was needed. The reference clearly states the age of 4. Not 3. 67.183.45.98 22:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are the facts of the matterL: Lincoln was elected on the first Tuesday of November in 1860. Wilson's fourth birthday was on December 28, 1860. This means that when Lincoln was elected--and for almost two months thereafter--Wilson was 3, not 4. Is it possible that the source is simply mistaken? If so, what's the remedy?K. Scott Bailey 22:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken? Could be. But, if so, then not much use as a source. Solution? Dunno. I suppose trying to find more references. There must be an original source for the statement of his earliest memory. That'd be the definitive source, I guess. I just thought I'd help out a bit, that's all. Not sure if you really want to keep the reference in the article if the fact it's backing up doesn't match what it says. Your call. I'm not involved. 67.183.45.98 23:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The source backs up the claim that his first memory was of hearing that Lincoln had been elected, etc. It could be mistaken about the one thing (his actual age at the time) but correct about the other, could it not? I think I'll leave the reference in for now, unless someone strongly objects.K. Scott Bailey 23:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

'Brief' look on Policies

Crusade for Reform: Tariffs, Banking and Anti-Trust Regulations

Wilson focused first on tariff reform, pushing through Congress the Underwood-Simmons Act, which achieved the most significant reductions in rates since the Civil War. He argued that high tariffs created monopolies and hurt consumers, and his lower tariffs were especially popular in the South and West. The act offset lost revenue by providing for a small, graduated income tax as authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which was adopted on February 25, 1913, before Wilson took office.

Next, Wilson tackled the currency problem and banking reform. Since the Civil War, Democrats and agrarians had wanted a more flexible money supply and system of banking that would allow adjustments in the amount of money and credit available in times of economic expansion or crisis. In response to the demand for reform, Wilson pushed for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which established twelve regional reserve banks controlled by the Federal Reserve Board, a new federal agency whose members were appointed by the President. This new federal system could adjust interest rates and the nation's money supply. Because it was authorized to issue currency based on government securities and "commercial paper" (the loans made to businesses by banks), the amount of money in circulation would expand or contract with the business cycle. Additionally, the Federal Reserve was empowered to adjust the interest rates, or the discount rate, charged to its member banks for money deposited in the branch reserve banks, which would indirectly control the interest rates that banks charged their borrowers. The new system could also set the amount of money banks would have to hold as an offset against deposits (the reserve requirement), thus establishing a reserve fund for times of economic crisis. This act, probably the most important domestic achievement of the Wilson administration, still provides the framework for regulating the nation's banks, credit, and money supply.

Wilson's support of the Clayton Antitrust Act, which Congress passed in 1914, endeared him to labor and farmers because it excluded their organizations from antitrust prosecution under the Sherman Antitrust Act. It also fulfilled a 1912 campaign promise by prohibiting some anti-competitive business practices, such as price-fixing and interlocking directorates (in which the same people sit on the executive boards of competing companies in one industry). This act complemented the Federal Trade Commission law passed the same year, which created a new government board appointed by the President and empowered to investigate and publicize corrupt, unfair, or anti-competitive business practices. When Congress created a separate cabinet-level Department of Labor on March 4, 1913, Wilson strengthened his support among progressives by appointing a former union official, William Wilson, as secretary of labor.

In 1916, Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis, a staunch progressive who had fought in court against the exploitation of women and children workers, to the Supreme Court. His confirmation, in a close vote, put the first Jewish justice on the Court. Following Brandeis's nomination, Wilson supported improved credit for farmers and workers' compensation for federal employees. He then pushed through a law to eliminate child labor, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 1918. When American railroad unions threatened to strike in 1916, Wilson supported and signed into law a bill securing an eight-hour workday for railroad employees -- the Adamson Act, which paved the way to shortened workdays for all industrial workers.

Federal Wartime Authority

On the whole, the administration was able to manage mobilization by creating special agencies that were staffed largely by volunteers and functioned only for the duration of the war. For example, Wilson established a War Industries Board in 1917 under the direction of Bernard Baruch, a wealthy New York stock market investor, to coordinate industrial production. Baruch had little legal authority but was so skillful at persuasion that industrial production increased by 20 percent. Wilson also appointed Herbert Hoover, a prominent mining engineer famous for his success in coordinating a massive relief program for German-occupied Belgium in the early years of the war, as national Food Administrator. To pay for the war, Wilson levied a new income tax, which accounted for about half of the $33 billion spent on the war. The rest of the cost was met through Liberty Loan drives, which rallied the population to invest in America by buying Liberty Bonds. In a personal touch, Wilson donated the wool from the sheep that grazed on the White House lawn to a Red Cross fundraising auction -- the sheep had replaced gardeners drafted into the military.

Civil Liberties during the War Years

To mobilize public opinion in support of the war, Wilson created the Committee on Public Information headed by George Creel, a muckraking journalist. Creel launched a campaign to sell the war to the American people by sponsoring 150,000 lecturers, writers, artists, actors, and scholars to champion the cause. His "Four-Minute-Men," meaning that they were prepared to make a four-minute speech anytime and anywhere a crowd gathered, made 755,190 speeches in theaters, lecture halls, churches, and social clubs and on street corners all over the nation. In the resulting patriotic fervor, opponents to the war were painted as slackers and even traitors. "Americanization" drives pressured immigrants to abandon their native cultures. Some states prohibited the use of foreign languages in public. New York State required voters to demonstrate literacy in English. Libraries publicly burned German books. Some communities banned playing the music of Bach and Beethoven, and schools dropped German courses from their curriculum. Sauerkraut became "liberty cabbage," and German measles was renamed "liberty measles." Some Americans with German names were beaten in the streets and even lynched. To avoid such violence, others anglicized their names.

Wilson sponsored the Espionage and Sedition Acts, prohibiting interference with the draft and outlawing criticism of the government, the armed forces, or the war effort. Violators were imprisoned or fined. Some 1,500 people were arrested for violating these laws, including Eugene V. Debs, leader of the Socialist Party. The Post Office was empowered to censor the mail, and over 400 periodicals were deprived of mailing privileges for greater or lesser periods of time. The Supreme Court upheld the Espionage and Sedition Acts as constitutional. Leaders and members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), known as "Wobblies," were especially singled out for attack. In one incident, Justice Department agents raided IWW offices nationwide, arresting union leaders who were sentenced to jail terms of up to twenty-five years. The IWW never recovered from this persecution. In 1916, the Democratic-controlled Congress promised the residents of the Philippine Islands independence; the next year, Puerto Rico achieved territorial status, and its residents became U.S. citizens. Working closely with Secretary of State Bryan, Wilson signed twenty-two bilateral treaties which agreed to cooling-off periods and outside fact-finding commissions as alternatives to war.

In a statement issued soon after taking office, Wilson declared that the United States hoped "to cultivate the friendship and deserve the confidence" of the Latin American states, but he also emphasized that he believed "just government" must rest "upon the consent of the governed." Latin Americans were delighted by the prospect of being free to conduct their own affairs without American interference, but Wilson's insistence that their governments must be democratic undermined the promise of self-determination. In 1915, Wilson responded to chronic revolution in Haiti by sending in American marines to restore order, and he did the same in the Dominican Republic in 1916. The military occupations that followed failed to create the democratic states that were their main objective. In 1916, Wilson practiced an old-fashioned form of imperialism by buying the Virgin Islands from their colonial master, Denmark, for $25 million.

Aggressive Moral Diplomacy

Wilson refused to recognize "a government of butchers" that obviously did not reflect the wishes of the Mexican people. His stance encouraged anti-Huerta forces in northern Mexico led by Venustiano Carranza.

In April of 1914, Mexican officials in Tampico arrested a few American sailors who blundered into a prohibited area, and Wilson used the incident to justify ordering the U.S. Navy to occupy the port city of Veracruz. The move greatly weakened Huerta's control, and he abandoned power to Carranza, whom Wilson immediately recognized as the de facto president of Mexico. One of Carranza's rivals, Pancho Villa, moved to provoke a war between the Carranza government and the United States by crossing the border into New Mexico on March 9, 1916, and killing several Americans. Wilson, without securing permission from Carranza, sent an expedition of 7,000 U.S. soldiers commanded by General John "Black Jack" Pershing into Mexico in pursuit of Villa. The expedition failed to capture Villa but provoked a confrontation between the Americans and Carranza's forces in which men on both sides were killed and several Americans were captured. Alarmed by the danger of war, Wilson reaffirmed his commitment to Mexican self-determination and agreed to discuss methods of securing the border area with the Mexican government.

Early in 1917, when it began to appear that the United States could not avoid being dragged into the European war, Wilson withdrew all U.S. forces from Mexico. The decision coincided with the publication of an intercepted message from Arthur Zimmermann in the German foreign office to the German minister in Mexico, instructing him to propose an alliance with Mexico against the United States if Germany and the United States went to war.

Neutrality in World War I

With the outbreak of fighting in the "Great War" in Europe in August 1914, President Wilson appealed to Americans to remain strictly neutral. He believed that the underlying cause of the war, which would leave 14 million Europeans dead by 1917, was the militant nationalism of the major European powers, as well as the ethnic hatreds that existed in much of Central and Eastern Europe. With nearly one in every seven Americans having been born in the countries at war, Wilson believed the United States must remain neutral. Because the American economy was in a recession when the war began, however, and the British and French were eager to buy American products, the administration interpreted neutral duties in ways that tended to favor the Allies. When Germany retaliated by using submarines to blockade the British Isles, Wilson refused to ban U.S. travel on British or American passenger ships or to cut off arms sales to the warring nations, as the Germans demanded.

End of Neutrality

Wilson's war message condemned German U-boat attacks as "warfare against mankind" but emphasized that the main goal of the war should be to end militarism and make the world "safe for Democracy," not merely to defend American ships. He promised that the United States would fight to ensure democracy, self-government, the rights and liberties of small nations, and an international peace organization that would end war forever.

Wilson and the Fourteen Points

Victorious in war, Wilson hoped to revolutionize the conduct of international affairs at the peace table. He first outlined his vision in the "Fourteen Points" speech delivered to Congress in January of 1914. It called for a "new diplomacy" consisting of "open covenants openly arrived at." No more secret treaties, like the ones that had pulled the world into war in 1914 would be tolerated, and all territories occupied during the war must be evacuated. Wilson wanted to dismantle the imperial order by opening up colonial holdings to eventual self-rule and all European sections of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires to immediate independence. He also proposed a general disarmament after the war, with the Germans and Austrians giving up their armed forces first. Fair treatment of revolutionary Russia, he declared, would be the "acid test" of the peace. Other points included freedom of the seas at all times and free trade all over the world. But Wilson's most important proposal was the prevention of future wars by means of a new international organization, a league of nations, open to membership by all democratic states. This new world body would be in charge of disarmament and the dismantling of colonial possessions. Most importantly, the League would hold power over all disputes among its members. Wilson believed that this League would transform international relations and usher in a new era of world peace. . The opposition at home equaled the opposition abroad. Senate Republicans, who controlled the Senate, were split into two groups: the "reservationists" and the "irreconcilables." The first group was led by Henry Cabot Lodge, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Lodge believed the obligations of the League would compromise American independence and proposed amendments to meet that threat. The second group was smaller and was opposed to any involvement of the United States in world affairs. Most Senate Democrats supported Wilson and the treaty.

Embittered over Republican opposition, Wilson launched into an arduous speaking tour to rally the nation to his cause -- 9,981 miles with speeches in twenty-nine cities. The effort depleted his already exhausted body, and he collapsed in Pueblo, Colorado, on September 25. Soon after, he suffered a serious stroke that left him half-paralyzed and totally secluded for the remainder of his presidency. In one of the most controversial episodes in presidential history, Wilson -- completely out of touch with the situation in the Senate -- refused to consider any compromises to the League, issuing his orders via his wife, who was one of the few people, other than his doctors, who spoke with him during the League battle. When the Senate Republicans amended the treaty -- to ensure that the President could not use U.S. forces on League business without securing congressional assent -- Wilson told his supporters to vote against the amended treaty, and they joined with the Republican "irreconcilables" to reject the League. America never joined the international organization that Wilson had envisioned as the foundation of his new world order. This failure of the League was a devastating conclusion to Wilson's almost superhuman efforts for world peace based upon international cooperation and the peaceful solution of international disputes.

AL TarK

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Allstaral67 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

iam on fire

• B-Class Georgia (U.S. state) articles
• Unknown-importance Georgia (U.S. state) articles
• WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) articles
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• B-Class Virginia articles
• Unknown-importance Virginia articles
• WikiProject Virginia articles