Why do we hate Woodrow Wilson?

I don't hate President Wilson. He's not in my top ten when I rank USA presidents, but hate is a pretty strong word. He lacked the personal charisma that others had that allowed them to pull off unpopular moves.
 
Re Mikestone8, under the Constitution the President has absolutely no formal role in the constitutional amendment process. Its purely a function of Congress and the state governments. He can comment but doesn't have to and historically often hasn't. Otherwise the plot of Spielberg's movie "Lincoln" would be incomprehensible.

With normal legislation and the federal budget, in addition to the veto, Congress has ceded a good chunk of its powers to the executive branch over the years.

One cause for confusion is that a President who supports a particular constitutional amendment may choose to have a formal amendment signing ceremony. But its all for show. Its constitutionally irrelevant since the amendment has already passed by a supermajority, which would constitute an override of any POTUS VETO automatically even IF the president wrote "veto":rolleyes::evilsmile: in said meaningless ceremony.

It can make it easier to pass in the state legislatures IF the president is wildly popular. Like Lincoln and the 13th Amendment.

At times, Wilson generated the impression of being smugly confident in his moral and intellectual superiority. (1) When he pontificated to other leaders or didn't want to listen to other's opinions, it's not surprising that he wasn't liked. A good example of this sort of behavior is the way he antagonized the Senate over the League of Nations. (2)

1) IOW, he was the typical published ivy league (Princeton) university president that he was.

2) He was right about the League of Nations though.

Maybe people on this site have picked up on this character flaw.

He was the first White Southern Democratic President since Zachary Taylor. That alone gets him serious demerits. That he along with every other president between 1900 & 1933 were no friends of civil rights make for a very dark image looking back from 2017. The same reason why Ulysses S. Grant has moved in rankings of Good Presidents from near the bottom (3) to the middle of the pack. (4)

3) Small wonder that. There wasn't a single Reconstruction historian of any note before the 1960s who weren't White Dixiecrats.

4) It was only in 2010 in the decennial ranking that somebody finally realized that Grant was the best president on Civil Rights until Lyndon Baines Johnson! That all his work was destroyed wasn't his fault, but Rutherford B. Hayes'.

Is Wilson hated that much in the USA? (5) In Europe, the general stance is largely that Wilson was one of the 'good guys', especially with regards to the notions of "making the world safe for democracy" and the "right of self-determination", both seen as being helpful for the short-lived democratization wave after the collapse of the German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires. (6)

5) No. He's hated that much on AH.com and among history-knowledgeable African-Americans.

6) History may be unkind to Wilson, but it is for domestic reasons. History has been VERY unkind to Lloyd George and Clemenceau for essentially setting the table for WWII. All in the name of securing good postwar election results. Which they didn't get.
 
Last edited:
I don't hate President Wilson. He's not in my top ten when I rank USA presidents, but hate is a pretty strong word. He lacked the personal charisma that others had that allowed them to pull off unpopular moves.

IMVHO he'd be ranked in the bottom third, but near the top of that third. We've had some REALLY bad presidents.
 

Towelie

Banned
The administrative state that he by and large put in place has allowed executive power to grow almost without any resistance for 100 years now. The bureaucracy's explosive growth in the 20th century had its seeds sown with Wilson.

Oh, and the federal income tax. Fuck Wilson.

He also mishandled the aftermath of WW1, with his sparse application of his principles.
 
The administrative state that he by and large put in place has allowed executive power to grow almost without any resistance for 100 years now.

Blame Congress' total abdication of responsibility. Except, of course, when the White House is controlled by the Party of the Opposition.

The bureaucracy's explosive growth in the 20th century had its seeds sown with Wilson.

Actually, the total abdication of responsibility by ANY branch of the Federal government in the Gilded Age is to blame for an enormous backlog of badly needed reforms. Reforms which, BTW, began in full earnest in the Teddy Roosevelt Administration, not Wilson's. It only looked like it was Wilson because Taft did so much rolling back of TR's reforms that when Wilson was elected it SEEMED like it all started with him. Also, Harding-Coolidge-Hoover were hardly giants of government executive overreach. Quite the opposite, actually. I think you really mean FDR and his New Deal, since the New Deal Coalition didn't die off until the Gingrich Revolution of 1994.

Oh, and the federal income tax. Fuck Wilson.

Check the history of state income taxes and when they were enacted. My own state never had one until the end of the Cold War, when our military-industrial complex gravy train went off the rails. Suddenly, we lost 50% of our taxable revenue base. Since states can't do deficit spending, it was either enact a state income tax or have the state default!

The US came out of WWI with debts that HAD to be paid, and we couldn't pay our bills with protective tariffs anymore. It would have started the Great Depression 10 years sooner. Not to mention we needed international trade for our economy to keep humming. And if you think we could have made it through the real Great Depression, paid for Lend-Lease, fought WWII, fought & won the Cold War, paid for MediCare-MediCaid-Social Security, built the inter-state highway system, electrification of the TVA, built federal dams, etc, etc, etc, WITHOUT the revenues from the income tax...then I would suggest you read up on governmental economics and the history of federal spending post-1918.

He also mishandled the aftermath of WW1, with his sparse application of his principles.

He had a stroke you know...
 
Letters to T.R. from Progressives and Democrats proposed an alliance with Bryan or Wilson, or the second spot on the ticket for one of them, if the progressive Democrats were defeated at Baltimore.

Had the authors of these missives consulted Bryan or Wilson about this remarkable idea - or even so much as met either of them? <g>.
 
Had the authors of these missives consulted Bryan or Wilson about this remarkable idea - or even so much as met either of them? <g>.

Richard Hofstadter once wrote that while logically Bryan should have supported La Follette in 1924 as the presidential candidate closest to his old principles, he in fact he not only supported Davis but lent his brother Charles to the ticket, because "The Commoner could no more think of leaving the Democratic Party than of being converted to Buddhism." https://books.google.com/books?id=fVnnj0RmdhoC&pg=PA262

Wilson would be almost as unlikely--and yet, if it somehow an embittered Wilson could be induced to accept, it would be a real breakthrough in dealing with what was perhaps the Progressive Party's greatest problem--its limited appeal to Democrats. Until Wilson was actually nominated, TR seems to have been sympathetic to him; when supporters urged TR not to run and split the small-p progressive vote, TR replied that "I do not believe that it would be right for us, excellent man though Wilson is individually, to support him. It would mean restoring to power the Democratic bosses in Congress and in the several States..." http://tinyurl.com/z58pv6q
 
Richard Hofstadter once wrote that while logically Bryan should have supported La Follette in 1924 as the presidential candidate closest to his old principles, he in fact he not only supported Davis but lent his brother Charles to the ticket, because "The Commoner could no more think of leaving the Democratic Party than of being converted to Buddhism." https://books.google.com/books?id=fVnnj0RmdhoC&pg=PA262

Indeed. My impression is that he would have campaigned for a chimpanzee just so long as it ran on the Democratic ticket.


Wilson would be almost as unlikely--and yet, if it somehow an embittered Wilson could be induced to accept, it would be a real breakthrough in dealing with what was perhaps the Progressive Party's greatest problem--its limited appeal to Democrats. Until Wilson was actually nominated, TR seems to have been sympathetic to him; when supporters urged TR not to run and split the small-p progressive vote, TR replied that "I do not believe that it would be right for us, excellent man though Wilson is individually, to support him. It would mean restoring to power the Democratic bosses in Congress and in the several States..." http://tinyurl.com/z58pv6q


Imho the problem about a TR-Wilson ticket is their egos - neither would have been willing to take second place to the other.

Lloyd George later observed that Wilson, whether "As President of Princeton University, or as Governor of New Jersey, or as President of the United States - - was always primus, not inter pares, but among subordinates". He wasn't a team player and never learned to be one, but always expected to be the man who gave the orders. Hence his ultimate catastrophe in 1919/20. Till then he got away with it, because what he wanted and what the Democratic Congress wanted had been in pretty good accord, but as soon as they parted company he was at a loss, unable to think of any course of action except futile demands. Given such a personality, I can't see him agreeing to be anyone's VP, or indeed to accept any subordinate role.

In a way, I regret this, as I have often amused myself envisaging a TL where Secretary of State Wilson resigns in 1915 because he considers President Bryan's Lusitania note to be too weak. But I can't really see him accepting that role either.
 
2) He was right about the League of Nations though.

In which case, the more fool he for not swallowing enough of the Lodge Reservations to get it approved. Even OTL it came within seven votes of acceptance, so he could have done it with a bit more flexibility.


4) It was only in 2010 in the decennial ranking that somebody finally realized that Grant was the best president on Civil Rights until Lyndon Baines Johnson! That all his work was destroyed wasn't his fault, but Rutherford B. Hayes'.

How do you work that out?

Nine of the eleven Confederate States (and all the Border States) had been "redeemed" before Hayes came into office. And iirc the order to withdraw troops from the two remaining ones had already been issued by Grant, though Hayes was in office by the time it was carried out.



5) No. He's hated that much on AH.com and among history-knowledgeable African-Americans.

Hated by a few, but it's not "hate" to think someone else might have been preferable. Personally, I'd sooner Clark had won in 1912, and Hughes in 1916, but Wilson's first term at least (save on the racial justice front) wasn't all that bad.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
In which case, the more fool he for not swallowing enough of the Lodge Reservations to get it approved. Even OTL it came within seven votes of acceptance, so he could have done it with a bit more flexibility.

Frankly, a U.S. alliance with France (and Britain) might have been more important than U.S. membership in the LoN. Indeed, interestingly enough, Lodge was actually open to such an alliance--and I can provide proof for this if necessary.

How do you work that out?

Nine of the eleven Confederate States (and all the Border States) had been "redeemed" before Hayes came into office. And iirc the order to withdraw troops from the two remaining ones had already been issued by Grant, though Hayes was in office by the time it was carried out.

It's interesting that Congressional will to do something about Southern racism still existed as late as 1875, though; indeed, that's when the last 19th century Civil Rights Act was passed by the U.S. Congress (before getting struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1883, eight years later :().
 
Frankly, a U.S. alliance with France (and Britain) might have been more important than U.S. membership in the LoN. Indeed, interestingly enough, Lodge was actually open to such an alliance--and I can provide proof for this if necessary.

Not necessary as far as I'm concerned. I believe you.

Lodge was one of the fiercest anti-Germans. In Feb 1917 he wrote to TR expressing concern that there "might be no sufficiently flagrant case of the destruction of an American ship and American lives to compel war". The bastard actually wanted innocent American sailors to be killed in order to secure his political objectives.

I have reservations about Wilson, but that doesn't make me a fan of Lodge. If Wilson was badly flawed, Lodge was just plain evil.




It's interesting that Congressional will to do something about Southern racism still existed as late as 1875, though; indeed, that's when the last 19th century Civil Rights Act was passed by the U.S. Congress (before getting struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1883, eight years later :().

Though their willingness to get tough with the South was already declining. As early as 1872, when the Republicans were still in firm control of Congress, they passed laws freeing almost all ex-Rebs from the political disabilities imposed by Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment. They still paid lip service to Negro rights, but even for them reconciliation between north and south was coming to seem more important.

This is one reason for my scepticism of the notion that keeping Lincoln alive would have dramatically altered the course of Reconstruction. He was always firmly in the mainstream of the Republican Party, so if still around in the 1870s would almost certainly have gone along with this measure.
 
Top