By - Will35084
The cult is gonna come after you now, you’re doomed!
I WILL DIE ON THIS HILL!
How is it a “cult”? A president being dislike here doesn’t mean there is a “cult”.
This is a very non self aware comment to make.
Explain to me how it is non self aware, please do.
There is a certain group of people who vehemently and seriously treat Wilson as the devilish villain of early 20th century America, and take every opportunity to bring him up. By being so offended and seriously off set by my joking comment about these people, you are demonstrating not only that you can’t take a joke, but are not cognizant enough to understand why it was said.
Okay, now do Trump.
I really don’t give a sh*t Z, get off of your high horse.
If you did not give a shit, then you should not have asked, Toast. After all, you engaged me, and I simply reciprocated your clamoring call.
Idk what ur being downvoted for here, I’ve seen Trump supporters on this subreddit talk basically the same way about the anti-Trump cult and get upvotes in the double digits.
I mean, I *think* I know why I am getting downvoted in this particular intense. It has to do with a couple of people who are in the community. Like I’ve been sent the screenshot of the above message like three times in the past 12 hours or so. I mean, I’m glad I made an impression on them. 🤷
I actually agree with much of what you say.
On here, you won't get anywhere. His racism will always trump everything else.
No pun intended. I probably shouldn't use the word that way on here.
Very interesting take, Maybe because we come from different political backgrounds I hold the federal reserve and the income tax against him, For me his extreme racism and his horrible policies with minorities and other areas really do keep him in my bottom tier but I respect your opinion!
Politically, I identify myself as center-right (so I align with Rockefeller Republicans and New Democrats), but when evaluating presidents, I try to keep myself open-minded. You’re right: Wilson does not deserve D or F tier. I seriously cannot think of putting him in the likes of Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan. Also, there’s a reason why Hoover, FDR, Truman, and Nixon admired him. No, that does not mean I think he was a good president. If anything, he was a mixed bag. He achieved many things through the “New Freedom.” Moreover, he was a good wartime leader and was certainly a visionary leader, which is, in my opinion, a pre-requisite to being a great president (e.g., Lincoln, Washington). However, I do agree that his failures and flaws should not be defended at all. His civil rights record was awful, as it regressed the progress that started with Grant. Moreover, his inability to work with Republicans on the Treaty of Versailles and to adequately respond to the crises that happened in the second half of his second term (including his stroke) doomed him.
I consider him to be C tier in my ranking (I’ll post the ranking sooner or later. I’m planning to make it a series on how and where I ranked them). He had a lot of accomplishments, but his failures should not be understated.
I agree, and I can't believe I forgot to mention not getting the Treaty of Versailles passed. His refusal to work with the Republican congress was a substantial shortcoming of his.
I think he is overhated by people on this subreddit, but underhated by historians. I personally have him low C to high D.
he is a bit like Jackson for me he did a lot of good but quite a few bad things. Although I think some of his European foreign policy gets too much hate
i don't like him because his teeth were gross
The genuine problem for me when it pertains to Wilson is that his failures were catastrophic and led to worse conditions for the U.S. from which he inherited and his successes to be disputed (I disagree with and find some of the positives you stated to be disputable). I think given your political views, it makes sense why you favor him, but in doing so, I feel like you downgrade the overall impact of his shortcomings.
Mainly, the biggest critique toward Wilson is the perspective that his form of interventionism and involvement in WWI ruined the 20th century, which to me, isn't exactly an unfair critique, albeit not one I fully agree with.
I do consider him F tier and one of the worst in history, but not the absolute worst. That title goes to Buchanan.
I'd argue that American Intervention succeeding World War I has had a mostly positive impact on the world. Obvious examples would be the US entering WW2, rebuilding Europe and Japan, and various other conflicts in Korea. Of course, there were plenty of bad cases of US Intervention like the various CIA coups in Latin America and the Vietnam War. Ultimately, I think US hegemony has been a force if good, and if Wilson, and the subsequent US domination of world affairs never happened, I wouldn't want to live in that world.
I read a post by someone from Quora stating that out of all the superpowers in human history, the U.S. was the most benevolent. I mean, in many cases, it’s true. The U.S. was literally the backbone of the economic prosperity of the Post-WW2 era. It was also a big proponent of free trade and globalization, which helped many countries in the world develop in the post-Cold War era. Though the U.S. had its setbacks and ultimate failures, the rest of the world should be lucky that the U.S. is genuinely trying to be diplomatic in international affairs and not trying to be an all-out imperialist like its predecessors.
How do u envision the world would have looked like without American interventionism?
A world which, if it survives the Nazis without U.S. help, is deeply entangled in who, at the time, was the next most powerful country, The Soviet Union. Europe and Asia would be devastated and in ruins from World War Two, and without U.S. help, someone would have to fill that gap. It would, at the very least, delay globalization and hurt commerce, meaning the quality of life developed nations have today is greatly set back.
For one thing, we’d all be speaking German.
Don't think that's a surefire conclusion, but I mean in terms of if we didn't intervene in WW1
Our intervention in WWI at least hastened the end of the war and saved many lives, if nothing else.
I don't think "Wilsonian Interventionism" had that big of an effect. The U.S did not pursue any major foreign interventions along the lines of what Wilson was trying to do until the Lend-Lease Act was passed, twenty years after the Wilson presidency. Couple that with actions like US aid to anti-communist forces in Greece and Korea during the late 40's to the early 50's, I'd say Truman and FDR started the intervention trend instead of Wilson
Wilson interventionism definitely set the stages for it, especially if one wants to consider the aftermath of WWI.
Do you mean that Wilson's diplomacy failed to resolve enough post-war issues, and that contributed to World War II and subsequently Lend Lease and eventually cold war interventon? I don't think that's a direct enough connection to put much blame on Wilson, but admittedly I don't know much about Versailles and the rest of the treaties.
One can argue that Wilson’s facade of neutrality in WWI and aid to the allies prevented potential peace talks in 1916 at the House-Grey memorandum setting the stages for Allied power punitive initiatives, intervention in the Russian Civil War leading to the rise of Lenin and Stalin by bribing the Kerensky Government, giving Bolshevik sympathies with the Russian Army and prolonging such war and leading to the Soviet distrust of western democracies which can be seen as a cause of the Cold War, multiple interventions in Latin American countries that led to instability in their governments throughout the century, and undid the treaty of London that would've given Italy Dalmatia, arguably leading to Mussolini.
Again, not a perspective I fully agree with, but the arguments are there and not entirely an unfair perspective to take.
Preach it brother! Wilson is C tier at worst.
Many things you mentioned I would hold very much against him, but that is just a clashing of ideologies. I do agree with what you mention regarding the reviving of the KKK, whether he did actually do that is still questionable. Also I was aware of the Volstead Act and that was really good. For joining WW1 had he joined earlier I believe there would have been no WW2 and even fewer casualties, as the war wouldn't have ever accelerated that far with so much against Germany and Austria-Hungary. He definitely has overlooked positives but I still stand by him being bottom tier. Appreciate the post though, as I enjoy seeing differing opinions. I won't slay you on your hill.
1. His foreign policy s rewed up the 20th century
2. He was a virulent racist that put in racist policies.
3. Sedition Act and Espionage Act
4. Latin American Adventurism
5. Ran up massive debts
6. Red scare
7. Ginned up xenophobia with his war propaganda
8. opposed women's suffrage
9. Created the Federal Reserve in such a way that it causes business cycles and recessions
10. The unneeded Clayton Antitrust Act
11. The unworkable League of Nations
12. Income taxes, which force people to lay bare their finances to the government
13. THE FTC, which acts as all three branches of government while having no accountability to the people or the voters.
14. Bad farming policies led to overproduction
15. Left the economy in total disarray
16. Refused to resign when he could no longer perform his duties
Above are some the bad things. The good things? He continued some conservation that was already happening under Taft and TR.
1. Look at my reply to emmc's comment.
I granted the 2nd and 4th points as bad things. I already mentioned most of the other things here, but
5. I don't think it's fair to take off points for racking up debt during times of conflict
7. That's true
15. The Depression of 1920-1921 was not at all caused by Wilson's policies, but because of the War ending. Given he was having strokes at the time, it's unfair to have expected him to do anything.
16. I also think that's unfair to have expected. Wilson's surgeon Dr. Grayson and Edith Wilson were hiding the severity of Wilson's condition, and were basically in control at the time. Grayson was the one who refused succession as an option. https://ahsl.arizona.edu/find/collections/presidents-illness/wilson
Wilson was racking up debt before the United States entered WWI, plus the U.S, should have avoided that war, and had Wilson acted even handedly, he would have. In February of 1916, more than a year before the United States entered World War I, the House-Grey memorandum was drawn up between Wilson’s emissary to Europe, Edward House, and the British foreign minister Edward Grey. The House-Grey memorandum pledged American intervention on the side of the Allies if Germany didn’t promptly come to the peace table. Britain and France both hung on knowing that the United States would eventually enter the war on their side militarily, as it was already on their side economically.
Wilson being incapacitated by a stroke is no excuse, he should have stepped down!
**Sorry for the late response, but I saw your post and wanted to answer it in full. For context, I do not think Wilson was the worst president of all time or anything, but I still have him in F tier and in my bottom 10.**
>His attempts to capture Pancho Villa by sending troops into Mexico was not only unsuccessful, but between that, his Invasion of Vera Cruz, and interfering in Mexico's democratic process, our relations with Mexico were deeply strained.
**I'm glad you brought this up. Not enough people focus on Wilson's disastrous actions in Mexico.**
**As one of Wilson's failures, you did not mention that he gave Kerensky's provisional government in Russia a total of 325 million dollars with the provision that Kerensky remains in WW1. Kerensky then launched an offensive that collapsed his provisional government and lead to the rise of the Bolsheviks. This makes me think that we should lay at least some of the blame for the collapse of Kerensky's government at Wilson's feet. (Source:** [https://www.nytimes.com/1984/11/07/opinion/us-aid-to-the-bolsheviks.html](https://www.nytimes.com/1984/11/07/opinion/us-aid-to-the-bolsheviks.html)**)**
**Now I will respond to your defense of Wilson:**
>The Federal Reserve Act which established the Federal Reserve was a big success. Today, the Federal Reserve is an immensely important institution. It has been better than any other central bank the United States has had
>The Clayton Antitrust Act added onto the Sherman Antitrust Act, and was great progressive trust busting legislation
>Wilson eventually pledged his support for women’s suffrage. However flawed his stance on women's suffrage was, his endorsement of it (which broke with his vice president by the way) was crucial for Susan B. Anthony’s amendment to get 2/3rds of the vote of the senate. Wilson should be recognized for his important role in giving women the right to vote.Wilson supported the income tax amendment, and signed an income tax into law with the Revenue Act of 1913. Today, the income tax is often seen as an imperfect tax with loopholes, but then, an income tax was a good decision since it gave the government revenue from something other than tariffs
>Wilson established the Federal Trade Commission, which has been very important as an anti monopoly institution, and it has greatly benefitted consumers.
>Wilson was a conservationist. He created the National Park Service, some new national parks and signed the Organic Act of 1916 which expanded protection of national parks already there.
>He gave railroad workers an 8 hour work day
>He signed the Federal Farm Loan Act which allowed small farms to better compete with large businesses
>Wilson opposed prohibition and vetoed the Volstead Act
>After the ratification of the income tax amendment, his administration appropriately lowered the Tariff through the Revenue Act of 1913
>His "New Freedom" domestic agenda was the first of its kind, and led to a bunch of progressive reforms and legislation not mentioned in this postHe strengthened the power that unions had
>Wilson gave Puerto Ricans US citizenship
**These were all good things I agree with.**
>Joining World War One (eventually) was a huge turning point, and shifted the balance of power towards the allies. As much as I think that joining earlier would have been better, joining later led to less American deaths. When he did join the war, he didn't drag his feet, which leads me to the next point:
>Many aspects of his handling of World War I were very good. He oversaw a rapid mobilization effort.
>He also created Federal agencies like the Federal Food Administration, the Food Board, and War Industries Board which made the US war effort more efficient and ensured that there were enough supplies.
>The "Liberty Bonds" issued raised billions of dollars for the war effort and helped pay for the war.
>In addition, the US also loaned money to the allies, and helped fund their war efforts
>Wilson put the Philippines on course for eventual independence, and gave them more autonomy through the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916
**I heavily criticize Woodrow Wilson for his conduct in the World War. His early contributions to the Allies showed that he was clearly committed to their cause and likely without America's help, the Allies would have totally lost. However, I criticize him for not intervening at the sinking of the Lusitania. American intervention at that time would have probably saved a lot of lives, and prevented the Nazis, Soviets, and WW2 as a whole. By what you wrote, you seem to agree with me, but I just really hold that against Wilson.**
>The League of Nations may have not been effective, but it is historically important since it served as the inspiration of the United Nations. Wilson, as the person who concocted and spearheaded the League of Nations deserves most of the credit for it and its implications
>Wilson's 14 points were ahead of his time, and if implemented, would likely have stopped World War Two from happening, considering that the allies going so hard on Germany was part of what caused the Nazis to rise to power.
>Wilson tried to restrict child labor through legislation, but what was passed was struck down by the Supreme Court.
>He was a comparatively pro-immigration president who vetoed anti-immigration legislation like the Immigration Act of 1917, which made a requirement for literacy tests (in spite of that, the vetoes was overridden by congress)
>He pushed for his 14 points, including self determination of nations during the Peace talks. His efforts and his spearheading of the League of Nations awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize of 1919.
**These things were good and I agree with them, but ultimately, they failed, so I can't give Wilson much credit for them. He founded the League of Nations, but couldn't get the US to join it and couldn't get the Allies to completely adopt his 14 Points.**
>Wilson bought the US Virgin Islands from Denmark
>He officially oversaw the opening of the Panama Canal in 1914
**I view these as kind of neutral.**
**Ultimately, I agree that Woodrow Thomas Wilson accomplished a lot of good in office, but I personally really bring him down for joining WW1 late, being partially responsible for the collapse of the Kerensky government, and failing in some of his best policies, as well as the other bad things he did which you mentioned originally.**
Thanks for the comprehensive comment. Ultimately, I think you can take points off for his stonewall uncompromising nature that led to his post ww1 policies failures while simultaneously adding points for bringing those policies into the limelight which ultimately had just as large an impact.
If there is definitive proof that Wilson's call for Kerensky to stay in the war was what led to the July offensive, than that is pretty bad. From the article you gave me, it doesn't look like the request was specifically for an offensive which leads me to think Kerensky made the decision based more off domestic turmoil, and need for public approval. If that is the case, then I think it's unfair to blame Wilson for a policy that was perfectly good by itself, but someone elses failure to make a good decision was what caused things to go wrong. I have the same opinion about Kennedy and his Vietnam policy. Some people think some of the blame for Vietnam's failure should go onto him. Why put some of the blame on him for things largly outside of his control. Anyways, that's just my perspective. I understand if you disagree with me. Thank you for giving your take.
Should have done Pershing proud by invading and conquering Mexico.
Wilson should be ranked above Madison.
I actually disagree. Madison is B Tier for me. He was just an all around good wartime leader without most of the morally reprehensible baggage that Wilson had that brings his score down.
A good wartime leader who... lost a war?
The War of 1812 ended in a draw, and a draw with favorable circumstances for the United States. We got the Era of Good Feelings out of it, and the British stopped impressing our sailors soon after. Plus, I've counted, and the US won more battles than the British anyway.
Britain won as it successfully defended its colonies. Also a war with Britain shouldn’t have occurred in the first place and america should’ve prioritised fighting the tyrannical French Revolution imo.
The presidents house being burned down is quite the black eye.
Madison deserves credit for his role in the war and blame for the occurrence of it. A good wartime leader prevents the unnecessary wars.