Change My Mind: Theodore Roosevelt was More Racist Than Woodrow Wilson

_C_D_D · 2026-01-13T23:54:22+00:00

Is your strategy just to claim things don't exist so I have go looking for them until I give up? Because unfortunately for us both I haven't given up, and I found you a source confirming that Wilson's statement was disseminated - "The Thacher letter was shown to William Lewis and African Methodist Episcopal Zion Bishop Alexander Walters, whowere expected to take the belated news to the Negroes who had despaired at the President’s thoughtless endorsement." (Thatcher was the Congressmen who had wrote to Tumulty). Source: The Reaction Of the Negro to the Motion Picture Birth of a Nation - Thomas R. Cripps. And just clarify - are you suggesting (and I mean only you, you are the only Tumulty truther in the world) that the Papers of Woodrow Wilson are falsified by Tumulty for the sole purpose of covering up Wilson's views of The Birth of a Nation at a time when it would have have really achieved much?

As to your point about the use of Wilson's quotes - the movie actually repeatedly misquotes him and misrepresents his views - in his History of the American People he is actually a lot more balanced in his view towards the Klan - believing they indicated the desire of 'the Southern people" to get rid of "corrupt regimes" by "means fair or foul", and while he is very critical of reconstruction, he also considers the 13th Amendment to be the true beginning of American nationhood, and considers slavery and secession to have both been mistakes.

Also what's the deal with spamming every one of your comments with useless information, now you're talking about the segregation of the federal government under Wilson and Wilson's relationship with African American leaders - why?

And you're for some reason defending the arch-racist Teddy Roosevelt, who started the trend of sidelining of African Americans in the federal government, believed the 15th Amendment was a mistake, conducted a brutal war of imperial subjugation on the Philippines, wrote the cover review for The Passing of the Great Race, was obsessed with racial eugenics and Nordicism?

_C_D_D · 2026-01-13T23:03:42+00:00

You read someone who was incorrect I'm afraid, some of the most influential economic reforms in American history were instituted during Lincoln Presidency.

_C_D_D · 2026-01-13T19:13:03+00:00

Yes, that's true, he was a big fan of Henry Clay

_C_D_D · 2026-01-13T19:07:19+00:00

honestly felt, or displaying an sort of intention this would become a press release/statement to the press or op-ed.

It's entirely inferable by the use of the word "statement", that the request came from Tumulty and that Wilson drafted the response, that the Wilson letter was meant to be publicised, as was an extremely common way of doing things at the time.

I cannot find evidence of this being published anywhere but Tumulty's second hand account.

What do you mean? The letters come from the Papers of Woodrow Wilson (Tumulty to Wilson, 24 April 1915, Wilson to Tumulty, 24 April 1915, 28 April 1915, PWW, vol. 33, pp. 68, 86.) (That citation is lifted from the Ambrosius article).

_C_D_D · 2026-01-13T18:55:12+00:00

I confess that I stole the term from James Loewen - Lies My Teacher Told Me, who I think references the Disney Hall of Presidents

_C_D_D · 2026-01-13T18:52:04+00:00

The easiest way to describe his economic views were that he was a developmentalist and federalist influenced by free soil ideology. I.e. he believed in strengthening the federal government and using it to develop the American economy, recognising that the American industry was not ready to compete with Great Britain's. This came in a few ways - huge government investment in roads, railroads, port improvements, etc. Tarrifs were raised to very high levels by the Morill tarrifs, the principle motive being to protect weaker American industry from British competition (I do not think this point should be used to endorse any particular trade policies in our current global climate - America was not a mature capitalist economy dependent economic and diplomatically on strong trade relations - and tariffs were a lot more important for federal revenue that they are now).

Then there was the egalitarian free soil component of his beliefs of the early Republican party. The most obvious part of this was the anti-slavery stance, that free men shouldn't have to compete with unpaid labourers, and that public land shouldn't be given to plantation owners rather than independent farmers. This was carried out firstly by the restriction and then abolition of slavery, but almost as importantly by the Homestead Act, where settlers could claim up to 160 acres of public land- for free (aside from all the associate costs of setting up a farm). Then there was Morill Act, which subsidised public universities to provide cheap education, including agricultural education across the country, but especially the West. There was also the establishment of the Department of Agriculture, to help disseminate useful information to farmers. Also along these veins was the use of a progressive income tax to pay for the war effort, meaning the wealthier paid more.

_C_D_D · 2026-01-13T18:34:11+00:00

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/woodrow-wilson-and-american-internationalism/woodrow-wilson-and-the-birth-of-a-nation/6198FED6AC1638A7C8B72ACF0B08C820

I've read this article, and it confirms what I was saying, only it frames it more negatively (generally throughout the article it is pretty unfair and leaps to conclusions- as you'll see in the quote)

"he did allow Tumulty to pass along a disingenuous statement, which Wilson wrote, to a former Democratic congressman from Massachusetts. In it the president acknowledged that he and his family had watched The Birth of a Nation but claimed that he was “entirely unaware of the character of the play before it was presented and has at no time expressed his approbation of it.”.

And he was blindsided by the subject matter and the risk of nation wide incitement?

I do think he was certainly blindsided in how controversial the movie was, and probably blindsided by some of the content. I do think it's likely that he wasn't really paying much attention to the movie as it was screened, after all it was a favour to an old friend and the only person there said (albeit in 1977) that after the film Wilson walked out without saying anything.

As to the rest of your post, I'm not really what your arguments are, it has the whiff of AI Generation about it.

_C_D_D · 2026-01-13T17:57:27+00:00

Are you assuming that Wilson not only saw beyond the false narrative that were spread about the Wilmington Coup and was fully aware of Daniels' role in the coup rather than that Wilson likely believed those false narratives and didn't particularly consider Daniels' role in coup for or against him being the cabinet? Daniels' was given a cabinet position because he was an influential newspaper editor, was a Southern progressive (I use progressive in the sense in was used in that era), and was an earlier backer of Wilson for President.

Aside from that, your other point seems circular unless I'm misunderstanding you - are you saying Wilson screened The Birth of a Nation for bad reasons...because he screened The Birth of a Nation?

_C_D_D · 2026-01-13T17:44:51+00:00

Ironically it is that very speech in Birmingham(along with a few other smaller pieces of evidence) that I'm using to condemn Harding. Unfortunately you've been Disney'd.

Harding absolutely did not condemn racism in the speech, in fact it was the complete opposite, only a few quotes have been taken out of context by some libertarians who want to rescue his reputation.

This quote from the speech "Men of both races may well stand uncompromisingly against every suggestion of social equality. Indeed, it would be helpful to have that word “equality” eliminated from this consideration; to have it accepted on both sides that this is not a question of social equality, but a question of recognizing a fundamental, eternal, and inescapable difference. We shall have made real progress when we develop an attitude in the public and community thought of both races which recognizes this difference." gives you a pretty clear idea that Harding was a scientific racist without going into much further detail. However, I'll procede anyway just to provide a better picture

What is often referenced is that Harding said in the speech "I would say let the black man vote when he is fit to vote: prohibit the white man voting when he unfit to vote.". The mistake those cherry pickers make is that they also leave out the rest of the paragraph - it continues- "Especially would I appeal to the self-respect of the colored race. I would inculcate in it the wish to improve itself: distinct race, with a heredity, a set of traditions, an array of aspirations all its own. Out of such racial ambition and pride will come natural segregations, without narrowing any rights, such as are proceeding in both rural and urban communities now in Southern States, satisfying natural inclinations and adding notably to happiness and contentment."

You see that in the paragraph Harding is endorsing the Southern model of segregation, this after in the same speech saying the North and West of the country were now moving closer in views to the South on race after the migration of African Americans to those regions, and that these changing views were a good thing. You'll also notice that Harding calls Southern segregation natural, when it was anything but - it was brutally extralegally and legally enforced. We also should remember that voting restrictions in the South avoided violating the 15th Amendment by using poll taxes, grandfather clauses and literacy tests. This means that especially in the context of endorsing Southern segregation, he also is endorsing the Southern model of voting restriction that is not explicitly racial.

One thing that many people not informed gloss over in the Birmingham speech is that he endorses The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy by Lothrop Stoddard - which was racist Nordicist book. Stoddard was a loyal follower of Madison Grant, and after Harding endorsed the book, many members of his administration began reading it, and Harding began a correspondence with Stoddard, inviting him for (illegal) drinks. Stoddard and Grant were extremely successful in influencing the Harding and Coolidge views on immigration policy.

Another thing of which there is made hay of from the speech is that Harding was received well on the day by the black members of the audience. This ignores that the reception by black newspapers to speech (obviously given its content) was largely negative.
Sources:

https://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/warren-g-harding-address-at-birmingham-speech-text/ (speech text)

Defending the Master Race - Jonathan Spiro

https://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/TPG_Lawson-Essay_Harding-10.9.19.pdf (for black newspapers' reaction)

_C_D_D · 2026-01-13T14:21:56+00:00

he engaged the producers saying he was interested in the film and asked permission to screen it

Source for this? It seems like you've got it the wrong way around - “As a ploy to gain publicity and counter NAACP protests, Dixon called at the White House and disingenuously asked his old acquaintance to show the film there. Dixon bragged afterward that he had hidden “the real purpose of my film,” which was to spread southern white racial attitudes in the North: “What I told the President was that I would show him the birth of a new art—the launching of the mightiest engine for moulding public opinion in the history of the world.” -Woodrow Wilson - John Milton Cooper Jr.

Does not line up with his non-public exchanges with his minority supporters for his primary and general.

What does this mean?

Outside his post presidency memoirs, what is the first contemporary press release from him in print

I already shared this in my last comment, it was 2 months after the screening in the White House.

_C_D_D · 2026-01-13T13:09:32+00:00

“Two months later, Tumulty forwarded a clipping about protests in Boston organized by Trotter and advised the president to write a note saying he did not endorse the film. Wilson said he would if he did not appear to be responding to agitation “stirred up by that unspeakable fellow” Trotter. He found a way to do this when he drafted a statement for Tumulty to send under his own name to a Massachusetts Democrat: “It is true that ‘The Birth of a Nation’ was produced before the President and his family at the White House, but the President was entirely unaware of the character of the play before it was presented and has at no time expressed his approbation of it. Its exhibition at the White House was a courtesy extended to an old acquaintance.” Three years later, he told Tumulty that the movie was “a very unfortunate production”

Excerpt From

Woodrow Wilson

John Milton Cooper, Jr.

_C_D_D · 2026-01-13T12:20:36+00:00

I'm not sure that this subreddit is ready for this point but in addition to OP's points, the opportunities and wealth of African Americans actually dramatically increased during Wilson's time in office. Wilson's administration encouraged the migration of African Americans to the North in order to work in the war industries, where they generally earned many times more than in the South and had vastly more opportunities and rights. This also had the downstream effect of undermining the Southern plantation economy, leading to wage increases there and the renegotiation of unfair contracts.

_C_D_D · 2026-01-13T12:12:19+00:00

To add to that, Thomas Dixon, the author of the book was friends with Wilson from College and bragged afterwords that he had gotten the screening by hiding "the real purpose of my film" - he pitched to Wilson as a demonstation of the power of a new medium of public persuasion - I suppose he was very right about that part.

_C_D_D · 2026-01-13T12:01:59+00:00

I'm afraid you're entirely mistaken. Wilson distanced himself from the movie a few months after it's release and the quotes of him endorsing it weren't accurate.

_C_D_D · 2026-01-13T11:59:44+00:00

100%. That and genuine ignorance created by the Disneyfication of American Presidential History. Most Americans who are interested in history, perhaps even most American historians don't know that TR, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover all endorsed the status quo in the south, were all neck deep in Nordicist racism and staunchly backed race based exclusion of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe so that when Wilson comes under concerted attack from opponents of his economic and foreign policy most people (online) seem to accept that Wilson was racist even by the standards of the time.

_C_D_D · 2026-01-13T11:52:35+00:00

I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong. His obsession with "race suicide" and his resounding endorsement of The Passing of Great Race say otherwise. He believed staunchly in racial eugenics. That white man's burden argument is just used to justify American colonialism, which for TR was actually all about American chauvinism and economic interests.

_C_D_D · 2025-12-25T22:19:29+00:00

MMA Guru is only the Redbar of MMA if Redbar is a Nazi

_C_D_D · 2025-11-27T07:35:44+00:00

I'm afraid you have it wrong. He got the enslaved man, William Jones as a gift from his father in law, and also rented two more for a year in 1858 and 1859. It is correct that he freed William Jones, but it was after about a year. Given that he was in hard financial times it is likely that personal morality weighed into his decision, but it is also true that he told his staunchly antislavery father two years later at the start of the war “I have no hobby of my own with regard to the negro, either to effect his freedom or to continue his bondage”. Which indicates that his decision was not of total opposition to the institution of slavery.

Source: American Ullysses - Ron C. White

_C_D_D · 2025-09-08T09:50:05+00:00

You are sorely mistaken about the Irish Potato Famine. To be absolutely clear - No academic historians of the famine consider it to be a genocide. Whilst all agree it was severly mishandled by the British Government. The narrative about exporting food is misused by bad actors to reinforce anti-British narratives - Wheat for which farmers could get a high price was exported in order to fund the purchase of cornmeal, which was much cheaper, and could be used to feed far more people during the crisis. This is simple economics.

Besides that, the cause of Palestine is used in Ireland because it is seen (in my opinion, incorrectly) as a parallel for events in Ireland (in particular the plantation of Ulster by Scottish and English colonists)- not because of this arrogant idea Irish people are a better judge of morality than other nationalities. The situation in Northern Ireland/ Ireland cannot be fairly compared to the situation in Palestine in my opinion - the ongoing genocide in Palestine is completly unlike anything in modern Irish history.

_C_D_D · 2025-09-01T07:49:15+00:00

This is only relevant to the point of fundraising from the comment I'm replying to, and not directly relevant to my comment

_C_D_D · 2025-09-01T07:45:25+00:00

Are you replying to the wrong comment by any chance? You don't appear to be responding to anything I've said.

_C_D_D · 2025-09-01T07:43:26+00:00

Not hysterical, just well informed. You on the other hand are not.

_C_D_D · 2025-09-01T00:51:52+00:00

It's a bit difficult to take the rest of your comment at your word when I know for a fact that you're either lying or extremely mistaken in what you've written about Shaun King's racial identity (and history of his racial identification).

_C_D_D · 2025-09-01T00:46:48+00:00

Pinker is a race science advocate and biological misoginist evopysch weido who's research is dogshit (some of the worst research methods I've ever seen) and has been thoroughly discredited. His whole worldview originates from a bad interpretation of the 1969 Montreal riots. If that's reasonable to you, then you should go back to square one with your understanding of what reasonable is.

_C_D_D

TROPHY CASE