The American Monarchy

[Lief 🗽]

The American Monarch: 1906 - 1909

In December 1906, Prime Minister Mark Hanna suffered a mild heart attack in his home in Ohio. This added to increasing concerns about the Prime Minister’s failing health. The 69-year-old Hanna refused to resign his position, however, and in 1907 was instrumental in passing the Frye Tariff, raising tariffs to their highest levels in American history. Following the passage of the tariff, a triumphant, but frail, Hanna called for elections, which King Robert II scheduled for the summer. Before any party conventions could take place, however, Crown Prince George married Alice Lee Roosevelt, daughter of the Secretary of War and member of the influential Roosevelt family. The American people quickly fell in love with Princess Alice. At the Populist convention in Baltimore, Tom Watson was once again nominated as the leader of the party. The 49-year-old accused the Liberals and SDP of endangering American lives and interests by allying with a belligerent European power. The SDP held their convention in Chicago, where Eugene Debs blasted the Liberals for stepping on the workers in favor of the rich. Finally, the Liberal Party held their convention in Ontario. Mark Hanna’s old age and poor health visibly showed, and it was a shock to many at the convention when he failed to win re-nomination on the first ballot. There were strong draft efforts for both William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, though none of them dared officially challenge the Prime Minister. Despite concerns about his health, Hanna won re-nomination on the second ballot. On Election Day in July, the Liberal Party retained their majority, though they lost a number of seats to the SDP and Populists.

The Senate after the Election of 1907:
Liberal Party: 223 Seats (-10)
Populist Party: 111 Seats (+15)
Social Democratic Party: 88 Seats (+15)
Total: 422 Seats



Mark Hanna once again became Prime Minister when the Senate reconvened that fall. Hanna rarely attended Senate meetings however, instead resting in his home in Ohio, and Deputy Prime Minister William McKinley more or less ran the show. McKinley and Secretary of War Roosevelt passed a number of bills through the end of 1907, further expanding the army and commissioning a number of new battleships modeled after the recently built HMS Dreadnought. In early 1908, Mark Hanna returned to the Senate, and in a frail voice called for the building of a canal in Panama¹, as part of the strengthening of the United State Royal Navy. The Columbian government, however, refused to sell the United States the Isthmus of Panama. King Robert II ordered three warships to the Panamanian-Columbian coast. When the Columbian’s still refused to sell the isthmus, Mark Hanna called for a declaration of war, and the Royal Council declared war on Columbia, by a vote of 28 to 18.

The war was short, and after a month, the United States had taken control of the entire region of Panama. The Columbian government, shocked that the United States actually went ahead with the invasion, surrendered quickly, and the United States annexed Panama with the passage of the Panama Act in the summer of 1908, setting aside the area as a territory. But the most important event of that summer, at least in the short run, was the death of Mark Hanna of a stroke in Washington at the age of 70. William McKinley immediately became acting Prime Minister, and the Senate was set to officially vote for him as Prime Minister on August 3rd.


Prime Minister William McKinley

Theodore Roosevelt, on the other hand, had different plans. He and his supporters in the Liberal Party put him up for Prime Minister. For the first time in most American lifetimes, the vote for Prime Minister did not return a majority on the first ballot.

First Ballot
William McKinley: 159 Votes
Thomas E. Watson: 103 Votes
Eugene V. Debs: 74 Votes
Theodore Roosevelt: 54 Votes
Needed to Win: 196

William McKinley, still acting Prime Minister, delayed the second ballot until the next week, as about forty Senators had not attended the vote, as the result was supposed to be already decided. In the week-long recess, Roosevelt lobbied centrist Populists and Liberals to vote for him, while at the same time trying to keep his original base intact. At the same time William McKinley lobbied those who had broken with him and supported Roosevelt, in an effort to gain a majority and avoid the dissolution of parliament and an election. The second ballot, however, proved inconclusive.

Second Ballot
William McKinley: 139 Votes
Theodore Roosevelt: 102 Votes
Thomas E. Watson: 93 Votes
Eugene V. Debs: 88 Votes
Needed to Win: 212

On the third ballot, more Liberals and Populists broke with their parties, while Debs’ SDP vote remained solid.

Third Ballot
William McKinley: 127 Votes
Theodore Roosevelt: 123 Votes
Eugene V. Debs: 88 Votes
Thomas E. Watson: 84 Votes
Needed to Win: 212

As the day ended, King Robert II publicly threatened McKinley that if he could not gain a majority by the fifth ballot the next day, Robert would call for new elections. McKinley, ever the scheming politician, once again postponed the vote for a week, giving him time to lobby his party for votes. However, a week later, the fourth ballot showed little movement for him.

Fourth Ballot
William McKinley: 147 Votes
Theodore Roosevelt: 106 Votes
Eugene V. Debs: 88 Votes
Thomas E. Watson: 81 Votes
Needed to Win: 212

But on the fifth ballot, McKinley’s support once again crumbled.

Fifth Ballot
Theodore Roosevelt: 141 Votes
William McKinley: 114 Votes
Eugene V. Debs: 88 Votes
Thomas E. Watson: 79 Votes
Needed to Win: 212

A defeated William McKinley, after the results of the fifth ballot, complained of dizziness and chest pains, and was quickly rushed out of the chamber by his aids. With McKinley out of the chamber, Elihu Root, the next highest ranking government member, was, by Senate rules, the temporary head of the chamber. Unfortunately for the McKinley faction, Root was also a Roosevelt supporter. Within minutes of taking control, Root opened a vote of no confidence as per the King’s wishes. Debate lasted only a few minutes, as none of the Senators had anything to say that hadn’t already been said in between ballots. The Prime Minister lost the no confidence vote 98 to 324. McKinley never found out that he had lost a vote of no confidence though: McKinley collapsed minutes after being rushed out of the Senate, and died of an apparent heart attack minutes later. By the time the vote had occurred, McKinley had already been dead for nearly ten minutes. Elihu Root, as Deputy Prime Minister at McKinley's death, became Prime Minister (though he would only serve for a few months, and never over actual legislation).


Prime Minister Elihu Root

In September 1908, the Populists and SDP held their conventions in Denver and Chicago, respectively. Both Thomas Watson and Eugene Debs were re-nominated on the first ballot. Both the Populists and SDP were confident in victory, as the Liberals were clearly divided. The Liberal convention, in late September, proved Debs and Watson right. Held in Boston, the two main candidates quickly became Theodore Roosevelt and Joseph G. Cannon of Illinois. Though Cannon was in his seventies, he was nonetheless a colossal figure in the Liberal party. Roosevelt gave a stirring speech, but he lacked establishment support within the party. Elihu Root (who had become Prime Minister following McKinley’s death) gave the next speech at the convention, but it was clear that the party bosses would not support Roosevelt. On the first ballot, Cannon secured 63% of the vote, though among delegates who were Senators, Roosevelt won with 53% of the vote. But, with the support of party leaders, Cannon was nonetheless confirmed as the Liberal Party Leader. A number of pro-Roosevelt Liberals walked out of the convention, but Roosevelt remained, and endorsed Cannon.

¹A failed revolution had embroiled Panama in 1903, but the Columbians had crushed it by 1904. Panamanian leaders had called for American assistance, but the United States had been too focused on Cuba at the time.

[Lief 🗽]

Too many characters, so I divided the update into two.

The campaign proved to be a close one. While there was no agreement between the national Populist Party and SDP, numerous state organizations acted together, running only one candidate or the other in districts that the Liberals had picked up with only a plurality. This strategy (employed in about thirty states), as well as fractures within the Liberal party, allowed the SDP and Populists to make solid gains that November, though neither was able to claim a majority. Continuing economic prosperity was also able to stem Liberal losses.

The Senate after the Election of 1908:
Liberal Party: 155 Seats (-68)
Populist Party: 163 Seats (+52)
Social Democratic Party: 104 Seats (+16)
Total: 422 Seats


 
The Senate met again in January 1909, where the vote for Prime Minister was once again up in the air. On the first ballot, each party voted for its respective leader.

First Ballot
Thomas E. Watson: 163 votes
Joseph G. Cannon: 155 votes
Eugene V. Debs: 104 votes
Needed to win: 212 votes

The second and third ballot returned similar results, and the Senate adjourned for the day. That evening, Theodore Roosevelt and leaders from the Populist Party met in Washington. Though Roosevelt personally despised Thomas, he realized his opportunity to gain a place in the government. The next morning, Roosevelt met with his supporters in the Liberal Party and told them what to do. The fourth ballot that day stunned leaders of the Liberal Party and SDP.

Fourth Ballot
Thomas E. Watson: 236 votes
Eugene V. Debs: 104 votes
Joseph G. Cannon: 82 votes
Needed to win: 212 votes

In return for Roosevelt’s support, Watson gave the New York Senator the most influential position in the cabinet, Secretary of State. However, Roosevelt and his supporters were kicked out of the Liberal Party for, in Cannon’s word, their “betrayal”, and they officially become independents. Nonetheless, the 52-year-old Thomas E. Watson had been re-elected as Prime Minister, and was able to serve a rare third term, at an age when most politicians were just beginning their careers.


Prime Minister Thomas E. Watson

The Government as of January 1909:
Prime Minister: Thomas Watson (P-GA)
Deputy Prime Minister: John Albert Johnson (P-MN)
Majority Whip: Robert La Follette (P-WI)
Secretary of State: Theodore Roosevelt (I-NY)
Secretary of the Treasury: William J. Bryan (P-NE)
Secretary of War: James W. Bryan (I-TX)
Attorney General: Gifford Pinchot (I-PA)

[Robespierre's Jaw]

YAY UPDATE WOOT! I didn't expect Thomas Watson to become Prime Minister again, but it's good to see that Bob La Follette and Theodore Roosevelt are in his Cabinet though. Great Work, as per usual

[Person Man]

I wonder how WWI will play out...

[Kevinstat]

I wonder how WWI will play out...

It looks at this point as we'd be on the German side, although with the Populists in power (albiet with some ex-Liberals who presumably supported the German alliance in the Government) our relationship with the "Second Reich" might become strained.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Or we might end up staying out altogether.  With Britain having to worry about the United States from the start, she might choose to forego a continental war.  Another possibility is that if Germany feels she has a strong naval ally in the United States, she might choose to not build up her own navy.  Also if Britain plays a defter diplomatic line, she might well be able to keep the Ottomans neutral or even bring her into the family of Entente powers instead of having her join the Alliance.  Then there's the fact that if the U.S. and Britain go to war, Mexico and Colombia are likely to join the British side if they think the U.S. is losing.  Indeed, seeing what happens if the U.S. is on the losing side in the Great War would be very interesting.

[Person Man]

I would think that we would lose Canada, Mexico and Cuba and would be thrown into a great depression because of the royalties we would owe to Britian and France. What would be great then is that the U.S. eventually wins WWII (the bomb is dropped on Kubichev and Sheffield) (and reclaims all of Canada and Meso America to N. Colombia and Trinadad) as an ally to Hitler and the cold war would be against Hitler and the liberals would be in power at the end of the 20th century as a result of the Germans folding to Gallic, Slavic and Latic ethnic seperatists that were supported by the RFIA (Royal Foreign Intellegence Agency). The terrorists could then be Catholic and Shinto terrorists.

[Lief 🗽]

Update tonight.

[CultureKing]

I have a feeling that whichever side the US joins would win WW1, we just have too many men to really be beaten if the US has significant allies.

[Reignman]

I have a feeling that whichever side the US joins would win WW1, we just have too many men to really be beaten if the US has significant allies.

The mere absence of US forces from WWI would've meant Germany wins (a la Harry Turtledove's series). US sending troops en masse to Europe in 1915 - pwnage.

[War on Want]

I have a feeling that whichever side the US joins would win WW1, we just have too many men to really be beaten if the US has significant allies.

The mere absence of US forces from WWI would've meant Germany wins (a la Harry Turtledove's series). US sending troops en masse to Europe in 1915 - pwnage.

Who knows we could be fighting in the American continent? After all America in this WI really seems to hate Britain.

[ottermax]

Will Washington ever come into existence?

[War on Want]

Will Washington ever come into existence?

I think the British own it , so unless we beat them in a war, no.

[Lief 🗽]

The American Monarchy: 1909 - 1912

In March of 1909, Thomas E. Watson proposed an agenda for the coming year: focused on reform, he would slash tariffs and regulate business. While the agenda was supported by Roosevelt’s independents and a majority of Populists, a handful of leftist Populists and the SDP decried Watson for such a moderate reform agenda. In Appeal To Reason, the SDP’s leading newspaper, “Sergeant” Debs said that Watson was propping up a “dying” system whose “extremities were already decomposing.” Nonetheless, in the summer of 1909, the Populist-Independent coalition passed the Meat Inspection Act and Pure Food and Drug Act, by margins of 334 to 80 and 320 to 93. Both acts were celebrated by SDP activist and journalist Upton Sinclair. The year ended with 19-year-old Prince Charles’ marriage to German Princess Viktoria Luise, cementing the alliance between the two nations.

As the year 1909 began, the nation was shocked when the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Robert T. Lincoln¹, struck down the use of literacy tests in the state of Alabama, and thus the rest of the country, in a 5-4 decision. The Populist Governor of the state, B. B. Comer, refused to discontinue the tests, and other Southern states quickly followed. Prime Minister Watson supported Governor Comer, arguing that the issue was one of the state’s rights, and the Supreme Court had no place in intruding with decisions, like this one, that were purely up to the states to decide. His opponents, especially in the SDP, labeled him a racist.² Nonetheless, the Roosevelt independents in his coalition pushed strongly for government support of the legislation, so Watson allowed a resolution on to the floor. The resolution, which passed 221 to 195, showed the Senate’s agreement with the court decision. By April, King Robert II had threatened to send the military to Alabama to forcibly allow the registration of blacks without any sort of prior testing.

As the situation in the South worsened, Watson focused on further reform. He passed the Gronna Anti-Trust Act, which exempted trade unions and other workers’ organizations from the Coxey Anti-Trust Act. The Populists and SDP had both been vying for labor support for years, though the SDP generally had stronger backing. The law, proposed by Asle Gronna (P-DA), aimed to regain labor support for the Populist Party, especially in the Midwestern and Eastern states. The Gronna Anti-Trust Act passed 331 to 79, with strong support from Watson’s coalition and the SDP. However, in the Royal Council, which was still Liberal-controlled, the bill failed by a 21 to 26 margin. In 1910, Watson pushed for tariff reform, with support from Debs’ SDP. His first bill slashed tariff rates by nearly 50%, but it was soundly defeated in the Royal Council. Watson met with Royal Councilors that Spring, and the two chambers came up with a compromise solution, cutting tariffs, but only by about 10%. The SDP decried the compromise, but it passed in the Senate and Royal Council nonetheless.

As the November Royal Council elections approached, the situation in Alabama had still yet to calm down. King Robert II sent the army into the region in September and declared that they would remain there to protect voters from intimidation and violence on Election Day. Eugene Debs swung through Southern states, meeting with African-American leaders and selling his vision of equality and justice. On Election Day, the Populists and Liberals lost heavily, with the SDP making major gains. While the SDP campaign in the South hadn’t broken the Populists’ hold on the region, it had allowed the Liberals and SDP to gain a few Southern seats.



The Royal Council after the Election of 1910:
Liberal Party: 24 Seats (-5)
Populist Party: 8 Seats (-5)
Social Democratic Party: 16 Seats (+10)
Total: 48 Seats

Watson, though privately angry at the election results, pushed forward with his agenda. At the urging of Roosevelt, the Senate passed bills setting aside millions of acres of forests, parks and wildlife refuges. The Wilderness Act of 1911, passed by a close 227 to 193 vote, defined harsh penalties for hunting or destroy the habitat of a few specially designated “endangered species” and limited the amount of logging of certain protected forests. Attorney General Gifford Pinchot, who had been a leader of the conservation movement before being appointed to the cabinet, used the Department of Justice to strictly enforce these regulations against individuals and businesses. Debs, though personally supportive of conservationist policies, instructed his party to vote against the bills, and he accused Watson of “ignoring the worker in favor of the preservation of business’ future profits.” In the summer of 1911, Watson planned to focus on further economic regulation and another attempt to lower tariffs, but two foreign policy situations suddenly erupted. To the South, Francisco I. Madero overthrew Mexico’s President Porfirio Díaz, who escaped to the United States during the summer. King Robert II, who had worked with Díaz during and after the War of Succession, accepted the exiled President at Arlington Palace. In June, Prime Minister Watson and Robert II met in Washington, where the King told Watson that he wanted troops in Mexico to reinstate Díaz. Watson, ever the pacifist, refused, threatening the king (who was commander-in-chief) with a complete defunding of the army and navy if he even began to move forces towards Mexico. Termed the June 4th Meeting, the Prime Minister angrily stormed out of Arlington Palace when the King suggested he might be forced to use his constitutional powers to select a new Prime Minister.

Complicating matters, on July 1, 1911, two German gunboats (the Eber and Panther) were deployed to the Moroccan port of Agadir, as a move on the part of the Germans to force the French into negotiations over North Africa. As Europe came closer to war, British Prime Minister H. H. Asquith declared that his nation’s honor (and that of her allies) was more important than peace. In Paris, the French refused to negotiate with the Germans until they removed the gunboats from Agadir. As June ended, the French were preparing for a defensive war, as French Commander-in-Chief Joseph Joffre gave up his attempts at reforming the strategic battle-plan to an offensive one. King Robert II and Prime Minister Watson pleaded with the French and German governments to stand down. In the Senate, Roosevelt, Debs and Cannon all pushed for a dramatic expansion of the army and preparations for war. Watson and the Populists refused to even consider the bill. Many pushed for Roosevelt to break from the coalition, forcing an election, but he refused to undermine the Prime Minister as negotiations were continuing. In July, the Eber and Panther remained outside Agadir. Both Germany and France were mobilizing, and Austria-Hungary and Russia were preparing to intervene on their respective allies’ behalves. Through August, both sides remained at the brink of war, while in the United States, Prime Minister Watson continued to refuse to allow war. In September, with an uneasy peace still prevailing over Europe, King Robert II and Prime Minister Watson again attempted to bring both parties to negotiations. Finally, on September 23rd, the Eber left Agadir. The French and Germans agreed to come to the table, and the Treaty of Fez was signed on January 4th, 1912, by representatives from Germany, France, Spain, Morocco and the United States (Secretary of State Roosevelt). The treaty gave control of Morocco to France, and France ceded territory in the Congo to Germany. Prime Minister Watson’s popularity surged, and he dissolved the Senate, and he publicly announced that there would be elections that year.

¹Robert T. Lincoln, the former Prime Minister, had been appointed Chief Justice in 1904, and easily confirmed by the Senate controlled by Mark Hanna. Lincoln, by taking a stand on a number of controversial issues in his 18-year term, would be regarded as one of the best chief justices. His father, Abraham Lincoln, would be widely regarded as one of the top Prime Ministers.
²Private writings by the Prime Minister released after his death would later show him to be a deeply prejudiced, racist man, and his image among Americans has depreciated considerably in recent years because of it.

[Reignman]

So the Populists become the Southern racist party. Interesting.

[Colin]

Private writings by the Prime Minister released after his death would later show him to be a deeply prejudiced, racist man, and his image among Americans has depreciated considerably in recent years because of it.

Well actually that normally doesn't happen. It's an easy to find fact that Woodrow Wilson, for example, was as rascist as Mr. Watson is in this timeline but that hasn't soured his reputation with many Americans, at least Americans that know who he is. Just because, years after the fact, historians figure out that a person is deeply rascist doesn't mean that the public immediately scorns him, of course it also has to do with what myths and "histories" people have been fed about the man.

[gorkay]

Private writings by the Prime Minister released after his death would later show him to be a deeply prejudiced, racist man, and his image among Americans has depreciated considerably in recent years because of it.

Well actually that normally doesn't happen. It's an easy to find fact that Woodrow Wilson, for example, was as rascist as Mr. Watson is in this timeline but that hasn't soured his reputation with many Americans, at least Americans that know who he is. Just because, years after the fact, historians figure out that a person is deeply rascist doesn't mean that the public immediately scorns him, of course it also has to do with what myths and "histories" people have been fed about the man.

You have to be careful about judging people in the past by today's standards. By today's standards, a lot of public figures who lived in Wilson's time were "racists." In fact, by today's standards all of the Founding Fathers were "racists" (and "sexists" too). 

[Colin]

Private writings by the Prime Minister released after his death would later show him to be a deeply prejudiced, racist man, and his image among Americans has depreciated considerably in recent years because of it.

Well actually that normally doesn't happen. It's an easy to find fact that Woodrow Wilson, for example, was as rascist as Mr. Watson is in this timeline but that hasn't soured his reputation with many Americans, at least Americans that know who he is. Just because, years after the fact, historians figure out that a person is deeply rascist doesn't mean that the public immediately scorns him, of course it also has to do with what myths and "histories" people have been fed about the man.

You have to be careful about judging people in the past by today's standards. By today's standards, a lot of public figures who lived in Wilson's time were "racists." In fact, by today's standards all of the Founding Fathers were "racists" (and "sexists" too). 

Please don't lecture me about judging people by today's standards, if anything you should be lecturing these unnamed people in Lief's TL for judging Mr. Watson by today's standards. All I am saying is that even if it comes out that some famous leader or historical figure was very racist, as happened with Wilson and as has happened, in some way, to Abraham Lincoln, his belief in sending the freedmen back to Africa isn't exactly what the abolitionists had in mind, people often don't have opinions that change so quickly on figures of historical importance that oftne become mythologized with time.

As for Wilson when you have people in 1912 call you rascist, if you segregate institutions that were desegregated before and had been for well over 60 years, and if you fire every black official appointed by any arm of the federal government, mostly black postmasters in African American majority towns in the black belt I think it's safe to say that you were rascist even by the standards of the day. Of course you should look at historical figures in comparison to their own time however there are plenty of very important very famous people who cannot be redeemed even if looked at in the context of their own time period.

[Julian Francis]

This is an AMAZING TIMELINE. It should be published this is how good this TL is. Bravo!

[Person Man]

Private writings by the Prime Minister released after his death would later show him to be a deeply prejudiced, racist man, and his image among Americans has depreciated considerably in recent years because of it.

Well actually that normally doesn't happen. It's an easy to find fact that Woodrow Wilson, for example, was as rascist as Mr. Watson is in this timeline but that hasn't soured his reputation with many Americans, at least Americans that know who he is. Just because, years after the fact, historians figure out that a person is deeply rascist doesn't mean that the public immediately scorns him, of course it also has to do with what myths and "histories" people have been fed about the man.

You have to be careful about judging people in the past by today's standards. By today's standards, a lot of public figures who lived in Wilson's time were "racists." In fact, by today's standards all of the Founding Fathers were "racists" (and "sexists" too). 

Please don't lecture me about judging people by today's standards, if anything you should be lecturing these unnamed people in Lief's TL for judging Mr. Watson by today's standards. All I am saying is that even if it comes out that some famous leader or historical figure was very racist, as happened with Wilson and as has happened, in some way, to Abraham Lincoln, his belief in sending the freedmen back to Africa isn't exactly what the abolitionists had in mind, people often don't have opinions that change so quickly on figures of historical importance that oftne become mythologized with time.

As for Wilson when you have people in 1912 call you rascist, if you segregate institutions that were desegregated before and had been for well over 60 years, and if you fire every black official appointed by any arm of the federal government, mostly black postmasters in African American majority towns in the black belt I think it's safe to say that you were rascist even by the standards of the day. Of course you should look at historical figures in comparison to their own time however there are plenty of very important very famous people who cannot be redeemed even if looked at in the context of their own time period.

It's a bloody shame that such a great leader could be so racist. I guess Wilson is sort of a Sanger-type figure. Was a great visionary, but racist as hell.

[gorkay]

Private writings by the Prime Minister released after his death would later show him to be a deeply prejudiced, racist man, and his image among Americans has depreciated considerably in recent years because of it.

Well actually that normally doesn't happen. It's an easy to find fact that Woodrow Wilson, for example, was as rascist as Mr. Watson is in this timeline but that hasn't soured his reputation with many Americans, at least Americans that know who he is. Just because, years after the fact, historians figure out that a person is deeply rascist doesn't mean that the public immediately scorns him, of course it also has to do with what myths and "histories" people have been fed about the man.

You have to be careful about judging people in the past by today's standards. By today's standards, a lot of public figures who lived in Wilson's time were "racists." In fact, by today's standards all of the Founding Fathers were "racists" (and "sexists" too). 

Please don't lecture me about judging people by today's standards, if anything you should be lecturing these unnamed people in Lief's TL for judging Mr. Watson by today's standards. All I am saying is that even if it comes out that some famous leader or historical figure was very racist, as happened with Wilson and as has happened, in some way, to Abraham Lincoln, his belief in sending the freedmen back to Africa isn't exactly what the abolitionists had in mind, people often don't have opinions that change so quickly on figures of historical importance that oftne become mythologized with time.

As for Wilson when you have people in 1912 call you rascist, if you segregate institutions that were desegregated before and had been for well over 60 years, and if you fire every black official appointed by any arm of the federal government, mostly black postmasters in African American majority towns in the black belt I think it's safe to say that you were rascist even by the standards of the day. Of course you should look at historical figures in comparison to their own time however there are plenty of very important very famous people who cannot be redeemed even if looked at in the context of their own time period.

I agree with your last sentence and wasn't saying anything to the contrary. I also wasn't defending Woodrow Wilson, nor was I trying to lecture you or anyone else. And by the way, the word is spelled "racist."

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's a bloody shame that such a great leader could be so racist. I guess Wilson is sort of a Sanger-type figure. Was a great visionary, but racist as hell.

Wilson was not a great leader.  In fact, I consider him to be the worst president who served two full terms.  W's worst moments over the past seven years have been when he acted in the tradition of WW.

[Person Man]

It's a bloody shame that such a great leader could be so racist. I guess Wilson is sort of a Sanger-type figure. Was a great visionary, but racist as hell.

Wilson was not a great leader.  In fact, I consider him to be the worst president who served two full terms.  W's worst moments over the past seven years have been when he acted in the tradition of WW.

Yes, but he set in motions of what would become America's brightest days 15 years after he died. His plans would eventually bring America new trading partners and broad-based economic prospriety. His plans were great, but like the public school system, they failed because of lack of commitment and of course, his stroke. The difference between W and WW is that Woody (lol) was asked upon by the world to make it better, he didn't tell the world it had to be better.  Bush probably would have been a better president if he did what the New Deal/Progressive hawks did. but alas...

can we get on to our alternative history session. We can start a discussion on this in the appropriate thread.

[Lief 🗽]

I'll update January 3rd or so. Write now I'm swamped.

[Хahar 🤔]

Write Right