Retrospective US Presidential Election: 1904
- Thread starter Nerdlinger
- Start date
Theodore Roosevelt - his only major flaws, which would cause me to hesitate for perhaps a couple seconds, have not yet occurred by 1904.
The criticisms on the 1st page are ridiculous. Except for his insubordinate orders to Dewey as Assistant Secretary of Navy in early 1898, Roosevelt was a peripheral figure in responding to the Philippine Insurrection for the pivotal first 3.5 years. And concerning race, Roosevelt's only big failure was the Brownsville Affair om 1906, where he made a terrible decision. In general on race, he was no worse, and frankly a lot better, than most of his contemporaries.
Wormyguy's criticisms are actually making me think that Theodore Roosevelt is underrated.
The criticisms on the 1st page are ridiculous. Except for his insubordinate orders to Dewey as Assistant Secretary of Navy in early 1898, Roosevelt was a peripheral figure in responding to the Philippine Insurrection for the pivotal first 3.5 years. And concerning race, Roosevelt's only big failure was the Brownsville Affair om 1906, where he made a terrible decision. In general on race, he was no worse, and frankly a lot better, than most of his contemporaries.
Wormyguy's criticisms are actually making me think that Theodore Roosevelt is underrated.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Teddy Roosevelt is an overrated imperialist dick. I'm not surprised AH.com enjoys Teddy Roosevelt.
Debs!
Debs!
Glen
Moderator
wormyguy, this comment is verging on trolling - keep your comments on topic and not ad hominem.
wormyguy
Banned
Well, frankly, it's the equivalent of claiming one would support Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia, because you like his economic policies. Actually, the number of people Slobodan had killed is significantly lower than those Roosevelt did.
Glen
Moderator
Kicked for a week for giving a trolling response to a warning not to troll. If too harsh, Ian can reverse, of course.
Pointing out facts and double standards on racism and imperialism is trolling?
Never started an armed conflict during his Presidency. I'm hard pressed to name an other 20th century two term President who could say the same. Hardly a warmonger.
Proto-fascist? What are you even talking about? This is the man that said "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Voted Teddy. Every great leader has his or her flaws in history. Roosevelt is no exception to this.
Last edited:
Except he clearly didn't, he just said he killed more people. Which is factually true. It's estimated 100,000 died under Milosevic. By contrast, if you just go to Wikipedia and look up the Philippine War you'll see anything from 200,000 to 1,000,000 estimated dead. So again, where's the trolling? How come people like TR and LBJ get a pass for their genocidal policies while presidents like Jackson get routinely condemned?
Roosevelt had warmongering tendencies, for example, WWI. Thus when Wilson defeated him in the 3-way in 1912, Roosevelt became totally belligerent in his attitudes on foreign policy when WWI broke out. But IMO this tendency was secondary to and dependent on his egomania. When Roosevelt was in charge, he was rational (see Venezuela). When he was out of power, he could be nonsensical.
To call such a comparison trolling gives way more credit than is due to Teddy's racist and imperialist views.
Say TR dies of yellow fever in Cuba in 1898. Stick any other potential Republican VP in 1900 and when McKinley dies, does anything change? Not at all.
And if Roosevelt's inclination is to break away from McKinley's Philippine policy, is there even a remote possibility for this to happen? Not at all with Republicans dominating government, at least before TR wins election in his own right in 04.
Johnson gets plenty of criticism on Vietnam from all angles.